[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 55 (Tuesday, May 9, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2181-H2182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, in assessing the 
effectiveness of immigration policy, it is helpful to look at both the 
push factors and the pull factors which contribute to the phenomenon of 
illegal immigration.
  In assessing the push factors, we must not overlook the role of the 
government of Mexico. On a human level, it is a sad fact that people 
are motivated to make what is often a dangerous trek north to the 
United States because of the absence of economic opportunity in Mexico 
itself. Yet this flow of illegal immigration into the United States 
acts as a pressure relief valve by allowing the Mexican government to 
escape political accountability to those it has failed.
  Ironically, the Mexican government's laissez fare attitude towards 
immigration out of Mexico is not reflected in its policy concerning its 
own southern border. When you hear the President of Mexico or other 
Mexican politicians rail against the House-passed border control bill, 
please keep in mind that when it comes to their own border policies, 
all of the rhetoric concerning the right to migration is suddenly 
nowhere to be found. In the end, the Mexican government's policy will 
prove to be shortsighted and will ultimately cause serious damage to 
their own country. Imagine the long-term effects of a nation losing 
millions of its hardest working younger people. The future of Mexico is 
sending its government a clear and unmistakable message of adios as 
they vote with their feet.
  Furthermore, when one factors Mexico's demographic future into the 
equation, a dire picture emerges. According to an article by Philip 
Longman in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, ``Mexican fertility 
rates have dropped so dramatically, the country is now aging five times 
faster than is the United States. It took 50 years for the American 
median age to rise just five years, from 30 to 35. By contrast, between 
2000 and 2050, Mexico's median age, according to U.N. projections, will 
increase by 20 years, leaving half the population over 42. Meanwhile, 
the median American age in the year 2050 is expected to be 39.7.'' 
Thus, ultimately illegal immigration from Mexico into the U.S. is not 
good for either Mexico or the United States.
  According to the Associated Press, President Fox has characterized 
the House immigration bill as, quote, stupid. To his credit, the same 
AP story quoted President Fox as acknowledging that his government must 
``generate opportunities here in Mexico.'' However, it is the 
responsibility of the United States Government to control our own 
borders and to take action to reduce the pull factors which draw people 
to the United States. We must demagnetize the attraction of illegal 
employment in the U.S. Unfortunately, our track record here reflects a 
failure of government policy on our side of the border.
  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, IRCA, or Simpson-
Mazzoli, for the first time imposed sanctions on employers for the 
hiring of those ineligible to work in the United States. Yet since the 
passage of that bill, administrations of both political parties have 
failed to enforce the law. The fact that there were only three cases 
last year, three, of a notice to file a prosecution for the unlawful 
hiring of illegal aliens is utterly indefensible. There must be a will 
to enforce the law.
  I wish to recount what in retrospect was the death knell to an 
effective regime of employer sanctions. An amendment to Simpson-Mazzoli 
was accepted which completely undermined the employment verification 
system. In its place, a series of documents required to be submitted 
with the I-9 employment eligibility verification form was substituted. 
The end result was the creation of a new cottage industry for the 
production of false documentation. I would like to emphasize once again 
that it was the negation of an effective employer verification system, 
which in combination with the lack of enforcement, undermined the 
usefulness of employer sanctions as an immigration enforcement tool.
  It was for this reason that the basic pilot project was created in 
1996 by this Congress. The system allows employers to voluntarily check 
the names and Social Security numbers of its employees

[[Page H2182]]

against the records maintained by the Social Security Administration 
and the Department of Homeland Security. Building on this project, H.R. 
4437, the House-passed bill, would create a nationwide mandatory 
program. Unlike the watered-down language in the 1986 bill, the 
employment verification provisions in the House-passed bill offers a 
genuine prospect for effective employer sanctions necessary to 
demagnetize the attraction of unlawful employment in the U.S.
  An effective employer sanctions regime, coupled with the need to 
fully fund the additional 2,000 Border Patrol positions authorized this 
year and in the out years, is essential if we are going to control 
illegal immigration. At the same time if we are to maximize the 
cooperation of employers with the implementation of an effective system 
of employer sanctions, it is necessary to ensure that in those cases 
where U.S. workers are unavailable, employers have the option of 
employing temporary foreign workers. Let me suggest that regulating the 
stream of workers which have crossed back and forth our southern border 
since the 1870s will facilitate the job of a larger Border Patrol and 
the implementation of an effective system of employer sanctions.
  By definition however, in a temporary worker program, the workers 
should be temporary. Along the lines of an amendment I offered 
unsuccessfully in 1986, workers could work in the United States for up 
to 10 months of the year. During that time a portion of their wages 
could be withheld. The money would be placed in an escrow account and 
would only be returned to the workers upon their return to their home 
country--in most cases--Mexico. The proposal has a built in incentive 
for the temporary workers to return home to work their own small farms 
and to reunite with their families. In fact, Mexico and Canada have 
entered into a temporary agricultural worker program along these lines, 
which by all accounts has operated quite successfully.
  Finally, we cannot avoid the issue of what we will do with those who 
have entered our country illegally and have settled in our communities. 
I certainly do not favor an amnesty. But the use of the word 
``amnesty'' does not excuse anyone on this side of the argument from 
explaining exactly what they propose to do with as many as 11 million 
people.
  By the same token, those who have violated our laws should not be 
allowed to cut in line in front of those who have obeyed them. A middle 
ground solution would allow those undocumented persons with sufficient 
equities in our society to remain. They could continue to work and 
travel back and forth between the United States and their home country. 
They would be legal residents, ``blue card'' holders if you will. 
However, they would not be afforded the legal equivalent of a diamond 
lane to citizenship. If they wish to become citizens, they would be 
required to return home, file an application and get in line like 
everyone else.
  Such requirements are necessary to reassure Americans who have been 
turned off by the ideologically driven multicultural agenda of those 
groups promoting identification with the Mexican flag, an alternative 
national anthem, and celebration of May Day in solidarity with leftist 
Mexican trade unions. It is hard for me to conceive of anything which 
could do more damage to the case one might make on behalf of those who 
demand acceptance by us to be equal partners in our society. For the 
common element of all immigrants who have come to this land has been a 
deep and burning desire to become Americans. The welcome mat extended 
to previous generations of immigrants was predicated upon a commitment 
to a common patrimony. Nothing less should be expected of those who 
currently seek to become a part of the tapestry of a larger tradition 
and history of American immigration.

                          ____________________