[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24981-24982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 THE INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPASSIONATE VISITOR VISA ACT TO FACILITATE 
  THE TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF NONIMMIGRANT ALIENS IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF 
          FAMILY EMERGENCY OF CITIZENS OR PERMANENT RESIDENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the compassionate 
Visitor Visa Act, a bill to facilitate the temporary admission into our 
country of nonimmigrant aliens, who

[[Page 24982]]

present no security risk, in times of family emergency for close 
relatives that are United States citizens or legal permanent residents.
  Mr. Speaker, each of us tries to make the best decisions we can on 
the national and international issues of our day. But each of us is 
also committed to helping those we serve with their individual 
concerns, where the rubber of our national policies meets the road of 
everyday life. And those of us who represent communities of proud 
immigrants maintaining close ties to their homelands know that a large, 
growing, and increasingly difficult and frustrating portion of our 
casework is devoted to immigration.
  In my own case, these issues involve citizens and legal residents 
with ties to the countries of Asia and the Pacific, the Philippines 
foremost among them (my district has more Filipino-Americans than any 
other congressional district in our country.) And of the related 
immigration concerns my constituents have sought my assistance with, 
none have been more difficult and heartwrenching than those involving 
the efforts of families to be reunited in time of family emergency.
  Consider the following real-life examples from my own district 
experience:
  A U.S. citizen mother was diagnosed with a terminal illness. She 
wanted to see her daughter, a Philippine citizen, from whom she had 
been separated for 15 years, one last time. Her daughter had remained 
in the Philippines by choice with her husband and children when the 
rest of the family emigrated to the U.S. She had no desire to emigrate 
and was willing to travel to see her dying mother without her husband 
and children. Nonetheless, she was denied a temporary nonimmigrant visa 
to say a final farewell and to attend her mother's funeral because she 
was not able to demonstrate affirmatively that she would in fact return 
to the Philippines.
  A terminally ill U.S. citizen had not seen any of her siblings for 
more than 20 years and wanted to see just one of them one last time. 
Her sister applied for a nonimmigrant visa to be able to visit and care 
for her sibling in her final days. Similarly, she was going to leave 
her own husband and young children behind in the Philippines. Her visa 
application was denied, the reason cited being that because her 
husband's income was modest and she was not employed, the assumption 
was the she would not return to the Philippines.
  Madam Speaker, these are compelling stories of a well-intentioned 
immigration policy gone very wrong.
  Let me first say that the problem these stories graphically 
illustrate and the solution my bill offers have nothing to do with 
preserving our homeland security. The reason for the rejection of these 
applicants was in no way related to any assessment of their security 
risk. They were subject to a security review like other applicants, and 
nothing in the compassionate Visa Act would alter that. All of that 
stands as it is and as it should be. (I will comment that resources to 
process security reviews in a timely and efficient manner are woefully 
inadequate to meet demand, but that is another discussion.)
  The reason lies instead in the application of the presumption clause 
in current immigration law. In practice, applicants for nonimmigrant 
visas are presumed to be at risk of defaulting on their visas and 
remaining in our country illegally unless they can affirmatively prove 
that they will return to their countries. In the cases above, the 
applicants provided documentation to overcome this presumption and 
demonstrate they had every reason to return to their country of origin: 
they maintained homes, businesses, bank accounts, and would leave other 
family members, often children, behind, but to no avail.
  We can and should have an in-depth debate about whether this policy, 
in theory and practice, is wise or fair across-the-board as to all 
nonimmigrant visa applicants, but this bill does not engage in that 
larger picture. What the Compassionate Visa Act does say, however, is 
that the presumption clause, as applied to close family members, who 
are not security risks, of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents 
that are seriously ill or who have died, is wrong and should be 
changed.
  Opponents of the bill may argue that the results would be to detract 
from homeland security and enhance the default rate on nonimmigrant 
visas. First, for the third time, nothing in this bill changes or 
compromises procedures designed to identify and weed out security 
threats, so that cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the focus of this 
bill. Second, this bill does not say that consular officers cannot 
consider evidence of applicants' willingness to honor visa terms and 
return to their countries, but it does say that the deck won't be 
virtually impossibly stacked against them from the get-go. And third, 
this bill applies only in the narrow case of an applicant whose close 
family member has a serious illness or has died or has some other 
similar family emergency, as demonstrated by proof to the satisfaction 
of the immigration officers. Frankly, I don't accept that changing the 
presumption clause will increase the default rate.
  Madam Speaker, this is the right thing to do, and we should do it.

                          ____________________