[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4669-4671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT AMENDMENT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I return to the floor to speak about the 
pending amendment to the border security and immigration bill that was 
voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to 
serve. I want to explain to my colleagues and anyone else who may be 
listening why I oppose this amendment. I believe that, while there are 
many good things in the bill, or amendment, one of the bad things it 
contains is that it provides amnesty to those who have violated our 
immigration laws. As I have said before and I will say again, I cannot 
accept amnesty as part of any comprehensive solution to our immigration 
crisis. But more important, it is not a question of whether I can 
accept this as part of the solution. I don't believe the American 
people will accept amnesty as part of the solution either.
  Unfortunately, at its core the committee product includes an amnesty. 
Let me explain in some detail because I think there are those who see 
amnesty in every solution that has been offered. Some say the guest 
worker program that the President speaks about is an amnesty. I don't 
necessarily agree with that because it is a temporary worker program, 
as he has used that term, not an alternative path to citizenship such 
as the Judiciary Committee bill. But I do think that there are some 
things that can justifiably be called amnesty; that is, if words have 
any meaning.
  The reason why I conclude that this Judiciary Committee bill provides 
an amnesty is because it creates a new path to citizenship for 
approximately 12 million people who have entered our country in 
violation of our immigration laws. I want to be quick to interject, we 
understand why it is that people come to America. It is the same reason 
that everyone wants to come to America, and that is because we are the 
beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity for the planet. We 
understand that and we harbor no ill will or grudge against people who 
simply want to provide for their family. We understand that. But as a 
sovereign nation, sovereignty implies control of our borders, and we do 
not have control of our borders today. It also implies that we will do 
first what is good for America and American interests, and then if we 
can, and certainly we do, we could go help our neighbor. But we simply 
can't throw our hands up in the air and say we give up when it comes to 
controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.
  First of all, that would violate the sacred oath that we have taken 
as Senators, as Members of Congress, to defend and uphold the laws of 
the United States, including the Constitution. So what we are talking 
about is not a matter of wanting to be unnecessarily harsh or punitive 
toward those who have come here for what are all understandable and 
human reasons. But I do not believe the American people will accept a 
proposal which includes amnesty because they understand that American 
citizenship is a very special privilege, and they reject the notion 
that we have no choice but to give it out because the Federal 
Government has simply failed to enforce the law.
  I strongly believe that we need comprehensive immigration reform, 
including border security. I think we need to provide a path to the 10 
million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws, 
who already live in the United States. But I have a fundamental 
disagreement with the approach contained in this amendment.
  I believe we must start with the rule that people who have come to 
this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to 
go through the same process as all other legal immigrants.
  Let me say that again.
  I believe we must start with an approach that people who have come to 
this country in violation of our immigration laws should be required to 
go through the same process as all other legal immigrants.
  But this committee product does exactly the opposite. It is a 
solution of sorts based on weakness and the self-fulfilling prophesy 
that we cannot enforce our own laws. The message this amendment sends 
to the American people is that because we can't enforce our immigration 
laws, the only way to address the 12 million people who have come here 
in violation of our immigration laws is to reward them with a special 
pass, a permanent resident status, and citizenship.
  Some say this legislation--the committee bill--is the only way to 
realistically deal with people who have come to our country in 
violation of our laws. But I reject this point of view--this defeatism. 
In fact, when I hear someone say that only amnesty will work, what I 
really want to ask them is: Why do we have immigration laws at all?
  There are those, as I have said earlier, who see amnesty behind every 
bush and call every proposed solution to the problem amnesty. I am not 
addressing those people with my remarks today because I don't think 
they will ever be convinced otherwise.
  But I do think there are ways to determine whether a proposal is 
amnesty, and I suggest to you the best way is to look at what this 
country did in 1986 and to compare the proposal in this Judiciary 
Committee bill with that 1986 law because that 1986 law is unarguable, 
undisputed. No one argues that law did not create amnesty. And if there 
are two things we can agree on, it is not only did it create an 
amnesty, but it was a complete and abject failure.
  Amnesty didn't work in 1986 and it won't work today. That is because 
amnesty encourages disrespect for our laws, and it shows disrespect for 
those who have earned or are trying to patiently earn U.S. citizenship 
lawfully.
  As I have said in this divisive debate, surely we can all agree that 
the 1968 law was amnesty and that it was a

[[Page 4670]]

complete failure. Some argue that the committee amendment is not 
because it is different from the 1986 amnesty. But I don't agree the 
two proposals are that different. What I would like to do is show this 
chart to those who are listening and watching. In 1986, these are the 
elements of the 1986 bill that was signed by President Ronald Reagan. 
It creates a two-step amnesty process.
  First, illegal aliens obtain temporary resident status. At the end of 
that period--just under 4 years--they could apply for a green card. 
That is for a legal permanent resident. But before they could get that 
green card, the 1986 bill required applicants for the green card to pay 
a fee and learn basic citizenship and English skills.
  If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because it is exactly the same 
model carried forth in the legislation voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee, which is the basic bill that we are working on as part of 
this debate.
  As you can see from this chart, both bills--both the Judiciary 
Committee product that we are now debating and the 1986 amnesty--are 
strikingly similar. And in some respects--this is really curious--the 
1986 amnesty was tougher than the one currently before the Senate.
  For example, the 1986 amnesty, like the current proposal, required 
that the person applying for legal status had to be in our country 
before a specified date. That date was you would have to have entered 
before January 1, 1982. That is 5 years prior to enactment. And the 
proposal on the floor says that you have to have come into the country 
before January 7, 2004.
  This is an important concept when considering amnesty because there 
are always reports of rushing to the border by those working along the 
border as aliens seeking to make their way here to take advantage of 
the amnesty.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in 
the Washington Times entitled ``Illegals Acted on Rumors of Amnesty.''
  Part of this article says:

       Nearly 35 percent of the illegal aliens captured trying to 
     enter the United States in the 19 days after President Bush 
     proposed a still-pending guest-worker program say they were 
     trying to take advantage of what they saw as an amnesty.

  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at 
the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in 1968 Congress recognized it was 
important to grant amnesty only to those aliens who had been here more 
than 5 years. In contrast, the pending legislation puts the date of 
eligibility to January 2, 2004, a little over 2 years ago.
  This chart also addresses other eligibility requirements. As Senator 
Kyl and I discussed yesterday, the 1986 amnesty required that 
applicants be admissible under immigration laws and that they not have 
been convicted of a felony or more than three misdemeanors, compared to 
the current proposal that simply requires that the applicant be 
admissible under immigration law; that is, they might still come to the 
country and be eligible for amnesty even if they are a felon or even if 
they have committed more than three misdemeanors because of certain de 
minimis provisions of the immigration law.
  Hopefully, our amendment will cure that omission, which will now 
ensure that felons and those who have been convicted of at least three 
misdemeanors cannot take advantage of the amnesty.
  My hope is that we will at least make this bill as tough and set 
standards as high as they did in 1986, which certainly is not the case 
for the current proposal pending on the Senate floor.
  Continuing under this chart, in 1986, the law created a new temporary 
resident status that lasted for 43 months. The current amendment 
creates a new conditional nonimmigrant status valid for 72 months. That 
is step 1, a temporary status.
  Much has been made under the committee proposal about the hurdles 
that those who are currently in violation of our immigration laws but 
are nevertheless here in the United States will have to achieve in 
order to obtain a green card which then, of course, is a pass to 
citizenship. It is described by critics as a difficult process because 
illegal aliens will have to learn citizenship skills, pay a fee, pay 
back taxes, and continue working here in the United States.
  But as the chart shows, the 1986 amnesty also required applicants to 
learn basic citizenship skills, including understanding ordinary 
English and history of the Government of the United States and to pay a 
fee.
  But the most important point beyond the similarity of the amnesty in 
1986, which everyone agrees was amnesty, the most important point is 
that we all can see that the amnesty in 1986 did not work and was a 
complete and total failure.
  All you have to do is look at the fact that about 3 million people 
who have come into the country in violation of our immigration laws 
benefited from that 1986 amnesty.
  Here we are 20 years later and we are not talking about 3 million 
people, we are talking about 12 million people, and maybe more.
  That is part of the reason some people regard amnesty as a magnet 
that will attract further illegal immigration across our border and 
only to have us agree to another amnesty and then meet the next wave of 
people coming across our border who have perhaps a future amnesty.
  Some people are very upset with the Federal Government and its 
failure to enforce our laws and to secure our borders. But the American 
people are a very forgiving people. I think if they believed that 
Congress is actually trying to solve this problem, as I believe we are, 
they will perhaps forgive us for not having secured our border before, 
made sure we had enforceable worksite verification and employer 
sanctions for those who hired people in violation of our immigration 
laws.
  But there is one thing the American people won't forgive; that is, if 
we try to trick them again by trying to sell them an amnesty in 2006 
when they know good and well that the amnesty in 1986 was a complete 
and total failure.
  I am earnestly interested in finding a solution to this problem. I 
believe the better starting point for solving this complex problem is 
with fairness. That means treating the people who have entered our 
country in violation of our laws no better than those who patiently 
wait outside of our country for their chance at the American dream 
through legal channels.
  This can be done by allowing those who have come here illegally a 
second chance to depart and then reenter the country legally. This is 
the model that was contained in legislation that Senator John Kyl and I 
introduced well over a year ago. We did so after holding about half 
dozen hearings on the broken immigration system and ways to fix it. 
Both of us, like all of our colleagues, but particularly Senators from 
border States, are earnestly interested in trying to find a way to fix 
it. But I recognize--and I believe Senator Kyl does as well--that there 
needs to be flexibility built into any proposal.
  We recognize there will probably have to be humanitarian exceptions 
for the elderly or third country processing for those who have no 
country to return to. Senator Kyl and I are working on proposals to 
make these concepts work as part of a comprehensive bill. But then for 
the 12 million illegal aliens in this country, I am confident for their 
personal situations we would all agree that some special consideration 
is warranted. No one can test that.
  But when creating a Federal policy that will impact tens of millions 
of people in the years to come, there has to be agreement and consensus 
on a general rule. That is why I disagree with the Judiciary Committee 
product. The general rule under their proposal is that illegal aliens 
will be rewarded with a special pass to citizenship and that person 
will be allowed to break in line ahead of those who have attempted to 
come to this country legally and are patiently waiting outside the 
country for their chance.
  As you can tell, it is no secret that I oppose the committee product. 
I oppose

[[Page 4671]]

it because I think it is bad policy and will reward illegal behavior. I 
believe it is a proposal built on an assumption that our immigration 
laws cannot be enforced. That is something I will never agree with 
because that is simply to give up and to admit defeat.
  But, most importantly, I oppose it because I believe it repeats a 
mistake that our country made 20 years ago which, if repeated, will 
never be excused or forgiven by the American people.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Times, Aug. 2, 2004]

                  Illegals Acted on Rumors of Amnesty

                            (By Jerry Seper)

       Nearly 35 percent of the illegal aliens captured trying to 
     enter the United States in the 19 days after President Bush 
     proposed a still-pending guest-worker program say they were 
     trying to take advantage of what many saw as amnesty.
       According to a confidential Border Patrol report to a 
     Senate committee, 1,000 of 2,881 foreign nationals 
     interviewed by agents after their capture at the U.S.-Mexico 
     border between Jan. 7 and Jan. 26 acknowledged that rumors of 
     an amnesty program--outlined in Mexican press reports and 
     passed on by relatives--had influenced their decision to try 
     to enter the United States illegally.
       Mr. Bush's proposed immigration initiative, formally 
     announced Jan. 7, would allow millions of illegal aliens in 
     the United States to remain in the country as guest workers 
     for renewable three-year periods if they have jobs. The 
     aliens eventually could apply for permanent legal residence.
       About 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens, mostly 
     Mexican nationals, are estimated to be in the United States.
       Beginning just days after the Bush announcement, the number 
     of illegal aliens caught crossing into this country from 
     Mexico increased dramatically, immigration-enforcement 
     officials said, although the White House painstakingly has 
     denied that the president's guestworker proposal offered 
     amnesty--saying, instead, it would give illegal aliens 
     holding jobs in the United States temporary work permits, but 
     they eventually would have to go home.
       Outlined as a set of principles and not as specific 
     legislation, the Bush proposal did not prescribe any 
     penalties for those caught entering the country illegally and 
     would allow those here to remain in the United States for an 
     as-yet undetermined number of renewable three-year periods.
       The Border Patrol report said 66,472 illegal aliens were 
     apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border during that 19-day 
     period, about 3,500 a day. The January 2004 total is more 
     than 11 percent higher than the number of apprehensions 
     reported in January 2003, according to patrol records.
       The report said questionnaires were given to field 
     intelligence agents to interview apprehended aliens on a 
     random basis to determine their ``perception of the proposed 
     temporary guestworker program.'' The questionnaire used the 
     word ``amnesty'' because of the widespread reporting in the 
     Mexican press referring to the proposed program as an offer 
     of amnesty, the report said.
       The questionnaire was canceled Jan. 26 after its public 
     disclosure. The report said Border Patrol officials 
     determined that the questionnaire's integrity had been 
     compromised by the press coverage.
       The Border Patrol has denied that the questionnaire was 
     politically motivated or intended to imply that Mr. Bush was 
     calling for a general amnesty, saying, instead, that the 
     agency routinely develops questionnaires to request 
     information from field offices on a variety of issues.
       ``This practice is critical to providing the Border Patrol 
     with a comprehensive understanding of the border 
     environment,'' the report said. ``The collection of this type 
     of information is an essential tool that enables decision-
     makers to develop plans and operations specifically designed 
     to counter threats or issues that the questionnaire 
     identifies or confirms.''
       The National Border Patrol Council, which represents the 
     agency's 10,000 nonsupervisory agents, said apprehension 
     totals increased threefold in the San Diego area alone, 
     adding that the majority of aliens detained along the border 
     in January told arresting agents that they had come to the 
     United States seeking amnesty.
       Most of those arrested and eventually deported had no 
     history of immigration violations, the council said.
       The council has told its members to challenge the guest-
     worker proposal, calling it a ``slap in the face to anyone 
     who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the 
     United States.''
       Congress approved an amnesty program in 1986 that gave 
     legal status to 2.7 million illegal aliens.
       A CBS News/New York Times poll in January 2004 said no 
     issue upset the public more than Mr. Bush's amnesty/guest-
     worker proposal, with only one-third of Americans supporting 
     him. And a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll that same month said 74 
     percent of respondents thought the United States should not 
     make it easier for illegal aliens to become U.S. citizens.
       Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a senior 
     member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had asked Homeland 
     Security Secretary Tom Ridge to explain whether ``rumors of 
     amnesty'' concerning the Bush proposal had played any role in 
     attempts by illegal aliens to cross the border.
       Mr. Grassley told Mr. Ridge in a letter that he was 
     concerned that illegal aliens were risking their lives and 
     putting their futures in the hands of corrupt alien smugglers 
     in an attempt to gain entry to the United States.

                          ____________________