[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 15704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to issue a challenge to my 
colleagues, those who have criticized the comprehensive immigration 
reform that has been offered as legislation. In the last Congress, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and myself and Senator McCain in the 
Senate offered comprehensive immigration reform. We have offered a 
similar bill this year. There have been a lot of critics who have taken 
the floor and have said that we should not do this; what we need to do 
rather than have comprehensive immigration reform is to simply secure 
the border and enforce the law, enforce the current law.
  Let me just run down what that actually entails. If we were to 
enforce the current immigration laws that we have, it would mean that 
we would literally round up between 10 million and 15 million illegal 
aliens who are here presently, uproot them from their jobs, often from 
their families, and ship them home to their home country where they 
would be subject to a 10-year bar from reentry. After that 10 years, 
then they would get in line to go through the legal orderly process, 
which would probably take another 20 years.
  Now, when I explain that to those who are critics of our immigration 
bill, they often say, well, we do not mean to enforce the current law 
as it is. Let us selectively enforce it. Let us go after the criminals, 
not after those who are legally law-abiding here. Well, that is called 
selective enforcement, and some will actually use that term. We need to 
selectively enforce the law. I ask the critics of comprehensive 
immigration reform, how is that any less of an amnesty than what has 
been proposed?
  Under our legislation, anyone here illegally, who has broken no other 
law than crossing the border illegally, would be required to register, 
pay a fine, and wait as many as, at least 6 years until the current 
backlog of those going through the legal orderly process in their home 
country is complete. Then they would be forced to pay another $1,000 
fine. How is that an amnesty, when simply selectively enforcing the 
current law is not?
  Please explain. For those who are criticizing comprehensive 
immigration reform, how are you going to secure the border and enforce 
the law without a temporary worker program? Our legislation realizes 
that there are many here, probably around 8 million, that are in the 
workforce currently. Unless we are willing to uproot them and send them 
all home, then we have to have a temporary worker program or a guest 
worker program before we can enforce the law. That is why we have to 
have comprehensive immigration reform that says we need the rule of 
law.
  In order to have the rule of law, we must have a law we can enforce. 
That is what this is all about, and that is the challenge I issue to 
those criticizing the comprehensive immigration reform that has been 
offered, the McCain-Kennedy-Kolbe-Flake-Gutierrez bill. Please come up 
with your own. Explain how we are going to enforce the current law 
unless we have a temporary worker program.
  People say, let us secure the border first, enforce the current law, 
and then see if we need a guest worker program. I have already 
explained what it means to enforce the current law. If you believe that 
is what we need to do, please proffer a bill. Write legislation. If 
that is what we need to do, then, please, stand here and suggest it. 
Otherwise, join us. Join us in our quest to actually have a law that we 
can enforce. Let us have the rule of law. That is what this country was 
built on. That is what we need to return to.
  It is not a healthy situation to have 10 million to 15 million people 
here illegally who are below the law, who work in the shadows. That is 
not healthy for national security. It is not good for our economy, and 
it is not humanitarian either. We simply need to change the law.
  So I invite my colleagues, please, submit legislation. Join this 
great debate that we have, but do not criticize unless you are willing 
to offer legislation yourself.

                          ____________________