[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 48 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1951-H1953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM--CONTINUED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I had to pause for a minute there. I was concerned that might be the 
Amnesty Act coming over from the United

[[Page H1952]]

States Senate, but I'm relieved to know that it might be a few more 
days.
  Picking up where I left off, I had made the point and read into this 
Record, Mr. Speaker, the language that was used in the 1986 Amnesty Act 
is almost identical to the language that was copied and pasted into the 
2006 Amnesty Act that they called ``comprehensive immigration reform'' 
because they knew the word ``amnesty'' would sink the bill then. Now 
they know that ``comprehensive immigration reform'' is code words for 
amnesty. The American people figured that out in short order.
  I will continue with the op-ed written by Attorney General Meese in 
2006. He said, as I remarked:

       If this sounds familiar, it's because these are pretty much 
     the same provisions that were included in the Comprehensive 
     Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not 
     amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not 
     change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent 
     Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is 
     that President Reagan called it what it was.

  We had an honest man in the White House who called it what it was. I 
continue from Attorney General Meese:

       The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty 
     did not solve the problem. There was extensive document 
     fraud; the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded 
     the projections. And there was a failure of political will to 
     enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, 
     illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued 
     unabated, forming the nucleus of today's large population of 
     illegal aliens. So here we are, 20 years later, having much 
     the same debate.

  Mr. Speaker, we're here right now having the same debate that we had 
in 2006, which was, according to Attorney General Meese, the same 
debate we had in 1986.
  What would President Reagan do? I often ask that. Actually, I'd like 
to wear a wristband, What Would Ronald Reagan Do?
  Attorney General Meese continues:

       What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not 
     repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own 
     administration. He knew that secure borders are vital and 
     would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would 
     seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration 
     laws. He would employ new tools--like biometric technology 
     for identification, and camera sensors and satellites to 
     monitor the border--that make enforcement and verification 
     less onerous and more effective.

  That sounds like some things that a number of us have been advocating 
for some time.
  Then Attorney General Meese continues--and I skip down a little ways:

       To give those here illegally the opportunity to correct 
     their status by returning to their country of origin and 
     getting in line with everyone else.

  Now, Mr. Speaker, it's appalling to me to think that the advocates--I 
understand the other side of the aisle; I understand the political 
motivation of the people on the other side of the aisle--expand the 
dependency class, expand those who can vote for those who want to 
expand the dependency class. I understand those motives. They are not 
good motives. They undermine American exceptionalism, but I understand 
them.
  On our side of the aisle, I don't understand--and I think it's 
because a lot of our own people don't have this figured out. They're 
looking for someone else to lead them, and they're looking for perhaps 
an easy way. But every proposal that has been brought forward here out 
of, let's say, the Gang of Eight or the ``secret gang'' in the House 
seems to have with it instantaneous legalization of 11, 12, 13--20 
million people, all of them, with the exceptions of those who have been 
convicted of or perhaps charged with a felony, those who have been 
convicted of three serious misdemeanors. That goes right back to this 
language of the '86 Amnesty Act: ``Those with convictions for a felony 
or three misdemeanors were ineligible,'' according to Attorney General 
Meese.
  So nothing has changed here, except we have a lot more Republicans 
that think instantaneous legalization--and they'd argue that it's not a 
path to citizenship. I happen to have this little quote from one of the 
Gang of Eight where he made us this point, which is he says that a 
green card is not a path to citizenship. The reason they have to say 
that is because the path to the green card is a path to citizenship if 
the green card is a path to citizenship.
  There has been an awful lot of misinformation that's put out here and 
erroneous conclusions drawn, unexamined by the American public that has 
forgotten, perhaps, about the 2006 Amnesty Act or the 1986 Amnesty Act.
  I see the gentleman from California, who was engaged in the Reagan 
administration and knew Ronald Reagan as well as anybody in this United 
States Congress, is here on this floor. I would be happy to yield so 
much time as he may consume, even if he consumes it all. But I would 
suggest it looks like it's 4 to 5 minutes left.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
  First of all, I would like to make sure that those people who are 
reading the Congressional Record or those people who are watching this 
presentation on C-SPAN, or our colleagues who are in their offices, 
watching from their offices, should take note of the courage and the 
hard work that Congressman King has put into this issue. And it is not 
because Congressman King or those of us who have worked with him on 
this issue have any animosity towards anyone else. Congressman King is 
a strong Christian and knows that hatred and animosity is not a 
positive virtue.
  But to the same degree, what is, then, Congressman King's motive? Why 
does he put up with this? Why does he work so hard? Because he loves 
the people of the United States of America. That's our job. We were 
elected by the people of the United States to watch out for them and to 
watch out for their families. That doesn't mean that we don't like 
people in other countries. That doesn't mean that we don't like or have 
some animosity towards someone who has come here from another country, 
and even those who come here illegally. But our first loyalty and our 
first consideration and our heart-felt support has to be for those 
people who are Americans, whether they were born here or whether they 
came here as legal immigrants and are now part of our American family.

                              {time}  1740

  There is nothing wrong with supporting your family. That doesn't mean 
you're being selfish by not selling your car or giving away your 
children's birthright to some other person down the block. No, you 
should be taking care of your family. And we Americans are a family 
that's made up of every race, every religion, and every ethnic group.
  The people who are the real racists in this whole debate are the ones 
who want to, first of all, tie illegal immigration with legal 
immigration. The fact is that they say, well, look, the immigrants, 
this and that. The fact is, when you want to put those same groups 
together, that is not what this debate is all about.
  Mr. King and I know full well that what's happening here today is an 
effort to take, not people who have come to our country legally, not to 
change their status legally, that's not my effort, that's not Mr. 
King's effort, but the effort that's going on is to take 11 million to 
20 million people who are in our country illegally, whose presence 
oftentimes is a threat to the well-being of people that have elected us 
to watch out for their interests, meaning the American people in our 
country, that the only issue is what are we going to do with those 11 
to 20 million people.
  If we continue to take away from those American citizens, those 
seniors or those kids in school, with our very limited dollars right 
now, and we have 22 million people who are out of work, and we continue 
to take away from them and give benefits and jobs to people who come 
here illegally, who are not part of our family, we can expect even more 
and more and more people to come here until it is a disaster, which it 
already has been a disaster for many middle-income and lower-income 
Americans. It will be a disaster to them.
  What we are trying to do is help secure the well-being of our people. 
As I say, I think that's done out of love. It's done out of the idea 
that you don't basically give away everything to somebody who is down 
the street when your own family needs some food. That's not being 
selfish.
  I recently have been through some hardship in my family, in terms of

[[Page H1953]]

medical hardship. I've been able to visit and see what our hospitals 
are like. Our hospital system in the United States and our health care 
system is stretched to the breaking point. We're stretched to the 
breaking point. We cannot afford, if we try, to take care of all of the 
people in the world who can come here, whether they come here illegally 
or not. If someone has come here illegally, we cannot afford to take 
care of all of their health needs without actually hurting our own 
people. That's what this whole debate is about.
  I was down in El Salvador. Ask Congressman King. I was in El Salvador 
about 3 years ago. And I'll never forget, my wife and I were sitting 
there at the airport, and in about 20 minutes there's a direct flight 
between LAX, Los Angeles, and El Salvador and back. We were there in El 
Salvador waiting to go back to LAX. Twenty minutes before the flight 
took off, out come the wheelchairs, and about 20 infirm seniors are 
wheeled into that plane. None of them were Americans. They were, 
obviously, all El Salvadorans.
  Now, no one can tell me today that those people, if they're still 
alive, are not consuming enormous amounts of health care dollars that 
should be going to take care of our own people. That doesn't mean that 
I have any animosity towards them. I wish the people of El Salvador 
well.
  We need to make sure that we are watching out. The fundamental issue 
today is whose side are you on, or who's watching out for the people of 
the United States? And I would ask all of us to join Congressman King 
in making sure that the American people are not damaged by this 
irresponsibility that we have towards people from another country who 
have come here illegally.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for coming to 
the floor. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                  [From Human Events, April 11, 2013]

                Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

                            (By Edwin Meese)

       What would Ronald Reagan do? I can't tell you how many 
     times I have been asked that question, on virtually every 
     issue imaginable.
       As much as we all want clarity and certainty, I usually 
     refrain from specific answers. That's because it is very 
     difficult to directly translate particular political 
     decisions to another context, in another time. The better way 
     to answer the question--and the way President Reagan himself 
     would approach such questions--is to understand Reagan's 
     principles and how they should apply in today's politics, and 
     review past decisions and consider what lessons they have for 
     us.
       Immigration is one area where Reagan's principles can guide 
     us, and the lessons are instructive.
       I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate 
     over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
     1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a 
     bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to 
     the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the 
     status of what was then a relatively small population. Since 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the 
     Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing 
     the implementation of that plan.
       President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at 
     our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration 
     laws would be greatly strengthened--in particular, through 
     sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If 
     jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting 
     off that option was crucial.
       He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status 
     of immigrants--even if they had entered illegally--who were 
     law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in 
     the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish 
     that they had resided in America continuously for five years 
     would be granted temporary resident status, which could be 
     upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after 
     another five years, to citizenship. It wasn't automatic. They 
     had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, 
     understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register 
     for military selective service. Those with convictions for a 
     felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
       If this sounds familiar, it's because these are pretty much 
     the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act 
     of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the 
     end, slight differences in process do not change the 
     overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate 
     legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that 
     President Reagan called it for what it was.


                             lesson of 1986

       The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty 
     did not solve the problem. There was extensive document 
     fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far 
     exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political 
     will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief 
     slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and 
     continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today's large 
     population of illegal aliens.
       So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate 
     and being offered much the same deal.
       What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not 
     repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own 
     administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and 
     would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would 
     seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration 
     laws. He would employ new tools--like biometric technology 
     for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to 
     monitor the border--that make enforcement and verification 
     less onerous and more effective.
       One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might 
     also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would 
     allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United 
     States--a reasonable program consistent with security and 
     open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy.
       And what about those already here? Today it seems to me 
     that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further 
     illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the 
     opportunity to correct their status by returning to their 
     country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. 
     This, along with serious enforcement and control of the 
     illegal inflow at the border--a combination of incentives and 
     disincentives--will significantly reduce over time our 
     population of illegal immigrants.
       Lastly, we should remember Reagan's commitment to the idea 
     that America must remain open and welcoming to those yearning 
     for freedom. As a nation based on ideas, Ronald Reagan 
     believed that there was something unique about America and 
     that anyone, from anywhere, could become an American. That 
     means that while we seek to meet the challenge of illegal 
     immigration, we must keep open the door of opportunity by 
     preserving and enhancing our heritage of legal immigration--
     assuring that those who choose to come here permanently 
     become Americans. In the end, it was his principled policy--
     and it should be ours--to ``humanely regain control of our 
     borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most 
     sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.''

                          ____________________