[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.''
____________________