Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 39 (Friday, March 31, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 39 (Friday, March 31, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2679-S2681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT AMENDMENT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I return to the floor to speak about the
pending amendment to the border security and immigration bill that was
voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to
serve. I want to explain to my colleagues and anyone else who may be
listening why I oppose this amendment. I believe that, while there are
many good things in the bill, or amendment, one of the bad things it
contains is that it provides amnesty to those who have violated our
immigration laws. As I have said before and I will say again, I cannot
accept amnesty as part of any comprehensive solution to our immigration
crisis. But more important, it is not a question of whether I can
accept this as part of the solution. I don't believe the American
people will accept amnesty as part of the solution either.
Unfortunately, at its core the committee product includes an amnesty.
Let me explain in some detail because I think there are those who see
amnesty in every solution that has been offered. Some say the guest
worker program that the President speaks about is an amnesty. I don't
necessarily agree with that because it is a temporary worker program,
as he has used that term, not an alternative path to citizenship such
as the Judiciary Committee bill. But I do think that there are some
things that can justifiably be called amnesty; that is, if words have
any meaning.
The reason why I conclude that this Judiciary Committee bill provides
an amnesty is because it creates a new path to citizenship for
approximately 12 million people who have entered our country in
violation of our immigration laws. I want to be quick to interject, we
understand why it is that people come to America. It is the same reason
that everyone wants to come to America, and that is because we are the
beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity for the planet. We
understand that and we harbor no ill will or grudge against people who
simply want to provide for their family. We understand that. But as a
sovereign nation, sovereignty implies control of our borders, and we do
not have control of our borders today. It also implies that we will do
first what is good for America and American interests, and then if we
can, and certainly we do, we could go help our neighbor. But we simply
can't throw our hands up in the air and say we give up when it comes to
controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.
First of all, that would violate the sacred oath that we have taken
as Senators, as Members of Congress, to defend and uphold the laws of
the United States, including the Constitution. So what we are talking
about is not a matter of wanting to be unnecessarily harsh or punitive
toward those who have come here for what are all understandable and
human reasons. But I do not believe the American people will accept a
proposal which includes amnesty because they understand that American
citizenship is a very special privilege, and they reject the notion
that we have no choice but to give it out because the Federal
Government has simply failed to enforce the law.
I strongly believe that we need comprehensive immigration reform,
including border security. I think we need to provide a path to the 10
million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws,
who already live in the United States. But I have a fundamental
disagreement with the approach contained in this amendment.
I believe we must start with the rule that people who have come to
this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to
go through the same process as all other legal immigrants.
Let me say that again.

[[Page S2680]]

I believe we must start with an approach that people who have come to
this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to
go through the same process as all other legal immigrants.
But this committee product does exactly the opposite. It is a
solution of sorts based on weakness and the self-fulfilling prophesy
that we cannot enforce our own laws. The message this amendment sends
to the American people is that because we can't enforce our immigration
laws, the only way to address the 12 million people who have come here
in violation of our immigration laws is to reward them with a special
pass, a permanent resident status, and citizenship.
Some say this legislation--the committee bill--is the only way to
realistically deal with people who have come to our country in
violation of our laws. But I reject this point of view--this defeatism.
In fact, when I hear someone say that only amnesty will work, what I
really want to ask them is: Why do we have immigration laws at all?
There are those, as I have said earlier, who see amnesty behind every
bush and call every proposed solution to the problem amnesty. I am not
addressing those people with my remarks today because I don't think
they will ever be convinced otherwise.
But I do think there are ways to determine whether a proposal is
amnesty, and I suggest to you the best way is to look at what this
country did in 1986 and to compare the proposal in this Judiciary
Committee bill with that 1986 law because that 1986 law is unarguable,
undisputed. No one argues that law did not create amnesty. And if there
are two things we can agree on, it is not only did it create an
amnesty, but it was a complete and abject failure.
Amnesty didn't work in 1986 and it won't work today. That is because
amnesty encourages disrespect for our laws, and it shows disrespect for
those who have earned or are trying to patiently earn U.S. citizenship
lawfully.
As I have said in this divisive debate, surely we can all agree that
the 1968 law was amnesty and that it was a complete failure. Some argue
that the committee amendment is not because it is different from the
1986 amnesty. But I don't agree the two proposals are that different.
What I would like to do is show this chart to those who are listening
and watching. In 1986, these are the elements of the 1986 bill that was
signed by President Ronald Reagan. It creates a two-step amnesty
process.
First, illegal aliens obtain temporary resident status. At the end of
that period--just under 4 years--they could apply for a green card.
That is for a legal permanent resident. But before they could get that
green card, the 1986 bill required applicants for the green card to pay
a fee and learn basic citizenship and English skills.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because it is exactly the same
model carried forth in the legislation voted out of the Judiciary
Committee, which is the basic bill that we are working on as part of
this debate.
As you can see from this chart, both bills--both the Judiciary
Committee product that we are now debating and the 1986 amnesty--are
strikingly similar. And in some respects--this is really curious--the
1986 amnesty was tougher than the one currently before the Senate.
For example, the 1986 amnesty, like the current proposal, required
that the person applying for legal status had to be in our country
before a specified date. That date was you would have to have entered
before January 1, 1982. That is 5 years prior to enactment. And the
proposal on the floor says that you have to have come into the country
before January 7, 2004.
This is an important concept when considering amnesty because there
are always reports of rushing to the border by those working along the
border as aliens seeking to make their way here to take advantage of
the amnesty.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in
the Washington Times entitled ``Illegals Acted on Rumors of Amnesty.''
Part of this article says:

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at
the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in 1968 Congress recognized it was
important to grant amnesty only to those aliens who had been here more
than 5 years. In contrast, the pending legislation puts the date of
eligibility to January 2, 2004, a little over 2 years ago.

This chart also addresses other eligibility requirements. As Senator
Kyl and I discussed yesterday, the 1986 amnesty required that
applicants be admissible under immigration laws and that they not have
been convicted of a felony or more than three misdemeanors, compared to
the current proposal that simply requires that the applicant be
admissible under immigration law; that is, they might still come to the
country and be eligible for amnesty even if they are a felon or even if
they have committed more than three misdemeanors because of certain de
minimis provisions of the immigration law.
Hopefully, our amendment will cure that omission, which will now
ensure that felons and those who have been convicted of at least three
misdemeanors cannot take advantage of the amnesty.
My hope is that we will at least make this bill as tough and set
standards as high as they did in 1986, which certainly is not the case
for the current proposal pending on the Senate floor.
Continuing under this chart, in 1986, the law created a new temporary
resident status that lasted for 43 months. The current amendment
creates a new conditional nonimmigrant status valid for 72 months. That
is step 1, a temporary status.
Much has been made under the committee proposal about the hurdles
that those who are currently in violation of our immigration laws but
are nevertheless here in the United States will have to achieve in
order to obtain a green card which then, of course, is a pass to
citizenship. It is described by critics as a difficult process because
illegal aliens will have to learn citizenship skills, pay a fee, pay
back taxes, and continue working here in the United States.
But as the chart shows, the 1986 amnesty also required applicants to
learn basic citizenship skills, including understanding ordinary
English and history of the Government of the United States and to pay a
fee.
But the most important point beyond the similarity of the amnesty in
1986, which everyone agrees was amnesty, the most important point is
that we all can see that the amnesty in 1986 did not work and was a
complete and total failure.
All you have to do is look at the fact that about 3 million people
who have come into the country in violation of our immigration laws
benefited from that 1986 amnesty.
Here we are 20 years later and we are not talking about 3 million
people, we are talking about 12 million people, and maybe more.
That is part of the reason some people regard amnesty as a magnet
that will attract further illegal immigration across our border and
only to have us agree to another amnesty and then meet the next wave of
people coming across our border who have perhaps a future amnesty.
Some people are very upset with the Federal Government and its
failure to enforce our laws and to secure our borders. But the American
people are a very forgiving people. I think if they believed that
Congress is actually trying to solve this problem, as I believe we are,
they will perhaps forgive us for not having secured our border before,
made sure we had enforceable worksite verification and employer
sanctions for those who hired people in violation of our immigration
laws.
But there is one thing the American people won't forgive; that is, if
we try to trick them again by trying to sell them an amnesty in 2006
when they know good and well that the amnesty in 1986 was a complete
and total failure.
I am earnestly interested in finding a solution to this problem. I
believe the better starting point for solving this complex problem is
with fairness. That means treating the people who have entered our
country in violation of our

[[Page S2681]]

laws no better than those who patiently wait outside of our country for
their chance at the American dream through legal channels.
This can be done by allowing those who have come here illegally a
second chance to depart and then reenter the country legally. This is
the model that was contained in legislation that Senator John Kyl and I
introduced well over a year ago. We did so after holding about half
dozen hearings on the broken immigration system and ways to fix it.
Both of us, like all of our colleagues, but particularly Senators from
border States, are earnestly interested in trying to find a way to fix
it. But I recognize--and I believe Senator Kyl does as well--that there
needs to be flexibility built into any proposal.
We recognize there will probably have to be humanitarian exceptions
for the elderly or third country processing for those who have no
country to return to. Senator Kyl and I are working on proposals to
make these concepts work as part of a comprehensive bill. But then for
the 12 million illegal aliens in this country, I am confident for their
personal situations we would all agree that some special consideration
is warranted. No one can test that.
But when creating a Federal policy that will impact tens of millions
of people in the years to come, there has to be agreement and consensus
on a general rule. That is why I disagree with the Judiciary Committee
product. The general rule under their proposal is that illegal aliens
will be rewarded with a special pass to citizenship and that person
will be allowed to break in line ahead of those who have attempted to
come to this country legally and are patiently waiting outside the
country for their chance.
As you can tell, it is no secret that I oppose the committee product.
I oppose it because I think it is bad policy and will reward illegal
behavior. I believe it is a proposal built on an assumption that our
immigration laws cannot be enforced. That is something I will never
agree with because that is simply to give up and to admit defeat.
But, most importantly, I oppose it because I believe it repeats a
mistake that our country made 20 years ago which, if repeated, will
never be excused or forgiven by the American people.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Times, Aug. 2, 2004]

Illegals Acted on Rumors of Amnesty

(By Jerry Seper)

Nearly 35 percent of the illegal aliens captured trying to
enter the United States in the 19 days after President Bush
proposed a still-pending guest-worker program say they were
trying to take advantage of what many saw as amnesty.
According to a confidential Border Patrol report to a
Senate committee, 1,000 of 2,881 foreign nationals
interviewed by agents after their capture at the U.S.-Mexico
border between Jan. 7 and Jan. 26 acknowledged that rumors of
an amnesty program--outlined in Mexican press reports and
passed on by relatives--had influenced their decision to try
to enter the United States illegally.
Mr. Bush's proposed immigration initiative, formally
announced Jan. 7, would allow millions of illegal aliens in
the United States to remain in the country as guest workers
for renewable three-year periods if they have jobs. The
aliens eventually could apply for permanent legal residence.
About 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens, mostly
Mexican nationals, are estimated to be in the United States.
Beginning just days after the Bush announcement, the number
of illegal aliens caught crossing into this country from
Mexico increased dramatically, immigration-enforcement
officials said, although the White House painstakingly has
denied that the president's guestworker proposal offered
amnesty--saying, instead, it would give illegal aliens
holding jobs in the United States temporary work permits, but
they eventually would have to go home.
Outlined as a set of principles and not as specific
legislation, the Bush proposal did not prescribe any
penalties for those caught entering the country illegally and
would allow those here to remain in the United States for an
as-yet undetermined number of renewable three-year periods.
The Border Patrol report said 66,472 illegal aliens were
apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border during that 19-day
period, about 3,500 a day. The January 2004 total is more
than 11 percent higher than the number of apprehensions
reported in January 2003, according to patrol records.
The report said questionnaires were given to field
intelligence agents to interview apprehended aliens on a
random basis to determine their ``perception of the proposed
temporary guestworker program.'' The questionnaire used the
word ``amnesty'' because of the widespread reporting in the
Mexican press referring to the proposed program as an offer
of amnesty, the report said.
The questionnaire was canceled Jan. 26 after its public
disclosure. The report said Border Patrol officials
determined that the questionnaire's integrity had been
compromised by the press coverage.
The Border Patrol has denied that the questionnaire was
politically motivated or intended to imply that Mr. Bush was
calling for a general amnesty, saying, instead, that the
agency routinely develops questionnaires to request
information from field offices on a variety of issues.
``This practice is critical to providing the Border Patrol
with a comprehensive understanding of the border
environment,'' the report said. ``The collection of this type
of information is an essential tool that enables decision-
makers to develop plans and operations specifically designed
to counter threats or issues that the questionnaire
identifies or confirms.''
The National Border Patrol Council, which represents the
agency's 10,000 nonsupervisory agents, said apprehension
totals increased threefold in the San Diego area alone,
adding that the majority of aliens detained along the border
in January told arresting agents that they had come to the
United States seeking amnesty.
Most of those arrested and eventually deported had no
history of immigration violations, the council said.
The council has told its members to challenge the guest-
worker proposal, calling it a ``slap in the face to anyone
who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the
United States.''
Congress approved an amnesty program in 1986 that gave
legal status to 2.7 million illegal aliens.
A CBS News/New York Times poll in January 2004 said no
issue upset the public more than Mr. Bush's amnesty/guest-
worker proposal, with only one-third of Americans supporting
him. And a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll that same month said 74
percent of respondents thought the United States should not
make it easier for illegal aliens to become U.S. citizens.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a senior
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had asked Homeland
Security Secretary Tom Ridge to explain whether ``rumors of
amnesty'' concerning the Bush proposal had played any role in
attempts by illegal aliens to cross the border.
Mr. Grassley told Mr. Ridge in a letter that he was
concerned that illegal aliens were risking their lives and
putting their futures in the hands of corrupt alien smugglers
in an attempt to gain entry to the United States.

____________________