[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9788]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  SECTION 245(i) EXTENSION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 21, 2001

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, today the House passed a bill introduced 
by Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Gekas. This bill, H.R. 1885, seeks to 
extend for four months provision 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act. I was not able to be present for that vote, but I 
write today to state my support for reinstatement of 245(i).
  245(i) allows certain undocumented immigrants to adjust their status 
while remaining in this country. Without that provision, they are 
forced to return home for a period of three to ten years before they 
can gain legal residency. This means, for example, that if someone from 
the Phillippines who lacks legal status marries a U.S. citizen, the 
couple must either be separated for several years, or they must both 
move to the Phillippines for the necessary time period. Either option 
is problematic.
  In 1994, 245(i) was created to provide a third option--one which 
allowed the couple to remain together in the United States while the 
undocumented immigrant sought legal status. Unfortunately, that 
provision expired in 1998.
  Last December, 245(i) was revived for a four-month period. It has 
become clear that there were problems with that time frame. 
Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was 
unable to process all of the applications by April 30, the date of 
expiration. In addition, immigrants were not able to comply with the 
complex paperwork requirements in that four month time frame.



  I applaud the efforts of Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Gekas in seeking 
to reinstate 245(i) again. However, their efforts do not go far enough. 
We should not stop by providing another four-month window of 
opportunity. Instead, we should reenact 245(i) as a permanent provision 
of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Punishing people who have 
legitimate claims to legal residency by forcing them to leave the 
country for several years is not an acceptable solution. We should 
provide them an avenue by which they can stay here while their 
application is pending.

                          ____________________