[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[House]
[Page 1075]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE LANGUAGE OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, as children we are taught the phrase ``sticks 
and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.'' I can 
tell my colleagues that the same rule does not apply to politics. The 
easiest way to kill an initiative is to apply an unpopular label to it, 
whether it fits or not.
  Opponents of meaningful education reform know they can kill it by 
calling it ``vouchers.'' Those who do not want Social Security reform 
can poison the well by calling it ``privatization.'' It is easy to 
repeal the ``death tax,'' but it is more difficult to get rid of the 
``estate tax.''
  In a similar vein, critics of the President's immigration reform plan 
are trying desperately to kill it by attaching the dreaded ``amnesty'' 
label to it. These critics would do well to heed another childhood 
axiom that applies very much to politics: ``You can't throw mud without 
getting it all over yourselves.''
  Under the President's immigration initiative, which largely mirrors 
the legislation that I have introduced along with the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and Senator McCain, those who are here illegally 
would have the opportunity to stay as temporary workers provided they 
pay a fine and have no criminal record. Those seeking to become U.S. 
citizens would not be given preference over those going through the 
legal, orderly process in their own countries.
  Now, according to the critics of the President's plan, this 
represents amnesty, because those who enter the country illegally would 
be allowed to stay for a period of time, even if they pay a fine and go 
to the back of the line. Now, the President's critics are welcome to 
use this broad definition of amnesty, but they should be aware that it 
applies to their own plans as well.
  Noticeably absent from any proposal advanced by the President's 
critics is a plan to deport the estimated 8 million to 10 million 
illegal aliens who are currently in the U.S. workforce. Much is said 
about deporting criminal aliens, who number some 400,000; but if you 
are an otherwise law-abiding alien worker, you are apparently safe from 
deportation. Now, if you are wondering how this is any less of an 
amnesty than what the President is proposing, you are not alone.
  The irony is for those searching for a get-tough policy, the 
President is offering a far more serious approach than that of his 
critics. Under the President's approach, after a date certain, every 
illegal alien currently working in the United States would have to be 
registered as a temporary worker in order to continue in his or her 
job. Severe employer sanctions would be leveled against employers who 
hire unregistered workers beyond that point, and every employer would, 
at long last, be given the tools to immediately ascertain who is here 
legally and who is not.
  Contrast this with what appears to be the critics' approach: 
employers would be given the tools to ascertain the legal status of 
workers or new hires, but apparently would not be required to check the 
status of current employees. To do so would reveal the presence of some 
8 million to 10 million undocumented workers that not even the 
President's critics have the stomach to deport.
  Our current situation is this: we have millions of illegal aliens 
here in the United States who are a part of our workforce. We can 
pretend that these workers do not exist, but that will not make them go 
away. The call to ``enforce our current laws'' makes for good rhetoric, 
but it would require rounding up all undocumented workers and shipping 
them home, which makes it just that: rhetoric. Let me repeat, not even 
the President's critics are saying that we should round up all illegal 
aliens and workers and ship them home.
  So that leaves us with just two options. We can continue with a wink 
and a nod to allow illegal aliens to enter the workforce with 
fraudulent identification and live in the shadows. If we thought this 
was acceptable prior to 9/11, we know it is certainly not today. 
Alternatively, we can create a legal, regulated framework under which 
workers can be hired and retained, as the President has proposed.
  Now, those who question whether or not we can follow through and 
enforce the new law with severe employer sanctions have a right to be 
skeptical after what happened after the last round of major changes to 
immigration law in 1986 when we failed to address the future need for 
workers. The only certainty here is that we cannot afford to continue 
with the status quo. And failing to acknowledge that we need a 
temporary worker program, like we failed to do after 1986, simply 
ensures that the status quo continues.
  Mr. Speaker, all of the name-calling in the world will not change 
that reality.

                          ____________________