Thread: Words of wisdom from 12 years ago

I saw this on a blog I viewed just today and I thought it fantastic information that I had never come across before. It is well worth a read:

Don Wat wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:53 AM:

" Jordan's advice still being ignored "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." - Testimony of Barbara Jordan, chairwoman, bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform Late U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan, (D-Texas), made the above remarks as part of her testimony to a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on the Judiciary, some 12 years ago. Back in 1995. Which was nine years after the "one time" amnesty of 1986 that we were assured was the certain remedy for illegal immigration. As the Bill Clinton-appointed chairwoman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, Rep. Jordan and her fellow members made recommendations to Congress addressing what was again regarded as a crisis in America - illegal immigration. They referred to their recommendations as a "comprehensive strategy for controlling illegal immigration." The Commission's recommendations included mandatory electronic verification of legal employment eligibility - "employer sanctions can work" Jordan said. On public benefits (taxpayer-funded services) Ms. Jordan's Commission recommended against eligibility for illegal aliens "except in most unusual circumstances." "Moral obligations work well enough in church, but the law requires a contract," she correctly observed. "Deportation is crucial," the Presidential Medal of Freedom award winner also advised. Ms. Jordan reflected the views of vast majority of Americans who are still waiting for equal protection under the law -justice - in their own country. Lucky for Ms. Jordan that she wasn't giving such advice on illegal immigration in 21st-century Georgia. The leftists in the media elite who attempt to subdue majority public opinion these days are tireless in their staunch intolerance to such diverse and politically incorrect thought. I can imagine the invective-filled editorials now. Using previous attacks on such blasphemous Americans as a guide, in the mindless hypocrisy governing the head thinkers at many newspapers, Ms. Jordan would likely be labeled a "mean-spirited right-wing zealot," "anti-immigrant" or maybe a "nativist extremist" - or even worse. The outrageous temerity to offer advice that American borders be secured, that social services go to legal residents and that we actually deport illegal aliens - as the law requires - has proven too much to bear for many modern journalists and editors for whom borders are inhumane. "To make sense about the national interest in immigration, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. Therefore, we disagree, also, with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable," Jordan told the 1995 Committee. As proof that successive sessions of Congress and administrations chose to ignore Barbara Jordan's words more than a decade ago, Georgia was a recent host to more House subcommittee Hearings focused on the same crisis - illegal immigration. What a difference 12 years didn't make. It is clear that credibility on immigration policy remains an unattained goal. The illegal alien lobby and the McCain/Kennedy open-borders coalition now label amnesty-again as a "comprehensive" strategy for controlling illegal immigration. The House hearings on the effects of illegal immigration and the American workforce and American health care were held here last week in Gainesville and Dalton. Having been a witness at one, attending both and listening to the 2006 testimony, it seemed to me that Barbara Jordan's words were echoing through time. Most witnesses told Georgia Congressmen Dr. Charlie Norwood, Nathan Deal and Dr. Tom Price, who all oppose the present Senate amnesty bill, essentially what Rep. Jordan did in 1995. We should all demand the Senate and the president listen to and act on the will of the American people and their advice now better than they did to the 1995 Commission, which was chaired by the first black woman from the South to be elected to the U.S. Congress. We don't have 12 more years to resolve the crisis, and we have proven that amnesty does not stop illegal immigration. The president and Congress should finally act on Barbara Jordan's recommendations. Let's try law enforcement and border security. Let's restore the rule of law on employment and immigration. "

Testimony of Barbara Jordan
Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
March 29, 1995
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/032995.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing this opportunity to testify today. I am Barbara Jordan, the Chair of the Commission on Immigration Reform. I am accompanied by the Commission's Executive Director, Susan Martin.

Before I begin my formal testimony, I must commend this committee on its use of new technology to bring the work of the Congress closer to the American people. As you will hear later in my testimony, the Commission shares your belief that the federal government must tap new technologies in order to make the work of government efficient and in touch with the demands of the American public.

The Commission on Immigration Reform was created by the Immigration Act of 1990. We are a fully bipartisan body. In addition to the Chair, we have eight members who were appointed by the majority and minority leadership in each house of Congress.

The Commission's mandate is to examine and make recommendations to this Congress on the implementation and impact of U.S. immigration policy. We are required to make interim reports as issues arise and a final report in September 1997. The Commission issued its first interim report in September 1994. In calendar year 1995, we intend to issue three reports with interim recommendations on a range of issues from legal immigration numbers and categories to the handling of migration emergencies and the removal of deportable aliens from the United States. In addition, we continue to pursue our long-term agenda to assess the economic, social, demographic and other impacts of immigration on the United States.

This morning I would like to describe briefly the recommendations the Commission already has made in the hopes that they will be useful to this committee in setting FY 1995 appropriations not only for the Commission, but also for other immigration-related agencies. I will then turn to our plans for this fiscal year and our request for next year's appropriations.

The Commission's 1994 report to Congress was entitled U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility. The title is telling of our recommendations. The Commission believes it is essential to control illegal immigration if we are to have a credible immigration policy. We believe legal immigration is in the national interest, but see illegal immigration as a threat both to our long tradition of immigration and to our commitment to the rule of law.

The Commission recommends a comprehensive, seven-point strategy to restore credibility. Let me tell you that the strategy is neither cheap nor painless. There are no quick fixes to our immigration problems; there are no inexpensive solutions. For too long we have neglected immigration as a public policy issue and now must pay for the consequences.

Four points in our report call for special attention. First, we need improved border management. The Commission calls for a strategy of prevention of illegal entry and facilitation of legal ones in the national interest. The concept is simpler, of course, than its achievement. The Commission was highly impressed with the border operations in El Paso that aim to prevent illegal entry. It is far better to deter illegal immigration than to play the cat and mouse game that results from apprehensions followed by return followed by re-entry. To accomplish a true deterrence strategy will require additional personnel as well as a strategic use of technology and equipment. We will also require new measures of effectiveness because apprehensions alone cannot measure success in preventing illegal entries. Our goal should be zero apprehensions-not because aliens get past the Border Patrol but because they are prevented entry in the first place.

While we tighten our control over illegal entry, we must also reduce the long waiting times at our ports of entry. It is ridiculous that people with legitimate border crossing cards feel it is more convenient to cross illegally than go through our ports of entry. But that is the case. Our own delegation waited for one and one-half hours to cross from Juarez into El Paso-and this wasn't even at rush hour. In an age of NAFTA, we must do a better job of handling the legitimate border travel. The Commission supports the development of a land border user fee whose resources would be used to open more lanes, add more inspectors and, if necessary, more ports of entry to speed this traffic.

Our second set of recommendations would reduce the magnet that jobs currently present for illegal immigration. We have concluded that illegal immigrants come primarily for employment. The Commission believes that we need to enhance our enforcement of both employer sanctions and labor standards. But, to make employer sanctions work, we must improve the means by which employers verify the work authorization of new employees. The Commission believes the most promising option is a computerized system for determining if a social security number is valid and has been issued to someone authorized to work in the United States. We are pleased that the Administration has endorsed our recommendations in this area, and we look forward to working with INS and the Social Security Administration on the design of pilot programs that will phase in and test this new verification approach. I urge this committee to provide the funding needed to develop the computerized system and implement the pilot programs.

Third, the Commission urges greater consistency in our immigration and benefits policies. We believe that illegal aliens should be eligible for no public benefits other than those of an emergency nature, in the public health and safety interest, and constitutionally protected. On the other hand, we urge the Congress to retain for legal immigrants eligibility for our safety net programs. The United States screens legal immigrants to determine if they will become public charges, but unforeseen circumstances-deaths, illnesses-occur. The Commission does not want to see individuals whom we have invited to enter become vulnerable when such situations arise. On the other hand, the Commission strongly supports efforts to make our public charge provisions work. We do not want the U.S. taxpayer to bear a burden when there is a sponsor in this country who has pledged to provide support for an immigrant. The affidavits of support signed by sponsors should be legally binding, and the provisions for deportation of those who do become a public charge-for reasons known prior to entry-should be strengthened.

The Commission also made recommendations regarding impact aid for states and localities experiencing the fiscal effects of illegal immigration. We believe the federal government has a responsibility in this area. The first responsibility is to control illegal entries; the second is to help states and localities with their fiscal problems. However, we are skeptical of some of the data used to calculate these fiscal impacts. At present, the Commission believes that the data to support reimbursement of criminal justice costs are sound and we urge immediate reimbursement of these costs. We are not prepared to make such a recommendation regarding medical and education costs. We also urge that any impact aid provided require appropriate cooperation by states and localities in the enforcement of immigration policy.

Our fourth area concerns the removal of criminal aliens. The Commission supports enhancement of the Institutional Hearing Program that permits the federal government to obtain a deportation order while criminal aliens are still serving their sentences. Once the sentence is over, it is far easier and less expensive to remove the alien after an IHP proceeding. The Commission also recommends further negotiation of bilateral treaties that will permit deportation of criminal aliens to serve their sentences in their home countries.

The Commission has provided copies of our full report to the committee so I will not go into details on the other recommendations. Let me turn my attention to this year's work. The Commission is currently at work on three reports while engaging in research needed to answer the longer-term questions in our legislative mandate. Our budget justification spells out these reports in some detail so let me emphasize our work in only one of these areas: legal immigration.

At the request of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the Commission has accelerated its examination of the legal immigration system in order to make recommendations by June 1. Last week, we spent a day of Executive Session debating basic principles to underlie our legal immigration policies. We discussed the national interest in family reunification, employment-based immigration, and diversity, refugee, and humanitarian admissions and we set out the objectives that each of us wants from legal immigration. During the next two months, we turn our attention to the numbers and criteria for admission that fulfill these objectives, the procedures we use to determine the admissibility of individuals applying for permanent and temporary admission, and other similar issues.

We are also looking at naturalization and the civic integration of newcomers to the United States. I, for one, would like to see all eligible immigrants become U.S. citizens-and become citizens for the right reasons, not to receive some federal benefit but to be fully participating members of our polity. Right now, there are too many barriers to naturalization. In some districts, it can take two years to complete the process. We plan to have recommendations to improve this situation.

Now, for FY 1996. We have requested an increase in appropriations for next fiscal year because we see a significant increase in our work. We expect and support major administrative and legislative action this year on immigration reform. The Commission feels an obligation to monitor the implementation of these initiatives so that we can give an independent assessment to the Congress of their effectiveness in reducing illegal immigration.

In addition to these assessments, the Commission will also turn its attention to structural issues in the implementation of U.S. immigration policy. Having made interim recommendations on improvements we urge regarding both legal and illegal immigration, the Commission will examine the adequacy of the structures we have in place to implement such policy. In our 1994 report, we already raised a number of questions regarding implementation and coordination of policy. For example, we have concerns about our border management apparatus, the coordination between the INS and the Department of Labor in worksite investigations, and the infrastructure to support effective enforcement and service delivery. These and other similar issues will be the focus of our attention in the next fiscal year. The Commission also will continue its assessment of the labor market, fiscal, social, and demographic impacts of immigration, as required by our statutory mandate. We already have begun two major, two-year research initiatives that will provide cutting-edge information on these issues. One is an expert panel at the National Academy of Sciences to assess the literature on the demographic, labor market, and fiscal effects of immigration, to undertake new research to fill gaps in current understanding, and to report to the Commission on their conclusions regarding the short-term and long-term implications of immigration for U.S. society. The second is a binational study with Mexico that should provide new information on the scale, characteristics, and impact of the largest single source of both legal and illegal immigration to this country. This binational study will permit data collection in both countries, providing answers to questions that cannot be examined adequately with data from the U.S. alone.

I thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the work and recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform. I also want to state for the record our commitment to work with this Committee as you address the very challenging issues arising in the appropriation of funds to improve implementation of immigration policy. We are the creation of Congress and offer ourselves as a resource to help you in your work. Dr. Martin and I would be pleased to answer questions.

http://www.africanamericans.com/BarbaraJordan.htm
BARBARA JORDAN was born in Houston, Texas on February 21, 1936. She believed deeply in the Constitution and an America made up of diverse people bound by common beliefs. E pluribus unum in unity we are one, was one of her favorite sayings used frequently in her speeches. As an elected official Barbara Jordan accomplished many firsts. She was the first African American to serve in the Texas Senate since Reconstruction (1966-72), the first African American woman elected to the U.S. Congress from the South (1972-7, and the first to deliver the keynote address at a national party convention (the Democratic Convention 1976, and then again in 1992).

She was educated in the public schools of Houston and graduated from Phillis Wheatley High School in 1952. After receiving a B.A. in political science and history from Texas Southern University in 1956 she went to attend law school. In 1959, she was admitted to the Massachusetts and Texas bars and commenced practice in Houston in 1960. She was an unsuccessful candidate for nomination as state representative in 1962 and 1964. During 1964 and 1965 she served as administrative assistant to Harris County Judge Bill Elliott and as project coordinator of a non-profit corporation to help the unemployed. In 1966 she became the first black person since 1883 to serve in the Texas Senate and was elected in 1968.

In 1972 Jordan defeated Republican Paul Merritt to represent Texas' Eighteenth District in the House of Representatives. She was a member of the Judiciary committee in the Ninety-third Congress and also joined the Committee on Government Operations during the Ninety-fourth and Ninety-fifth Congress.

Shortly after the Ninety-third Congress convened in 1973, it entered a struggle with the Nixon administration over budgetary reform, the troubled economy, Indochina and other issues. Jordan and other freshman representatives met with Speaker Carl Albert and arranged a meeting on the House floor in April to provide newly elected Democrats an opportunity to express their frustration with the difficult relations between Congress and the Executive Branch. Jordan herself praised the House's capacity for self-reform. During the same Congress she attached civil rights amendments to legislation authorizing cities to receive direct Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grants, rather than apply to state governments for the money. Jordan questioned the civil rights record of House Republican leader Gerald Ford when he was nominated for vice president, and joined seven other Judiciary Committee members in voting against his confirmation. During the Judiciary Committee's hearings on the possible impeachment of President Nixon in the summer of 1974, Jordan won national acclaim for her eloquent reaffirmation of faith in the Constitution while voting for all five articles of impeachment.

In June 1975 the House voted to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for ten years. Jordan sponsored legislation extending the Act to include Spanish-heritage, American Indian, Alaskan Natives and Asian American language minorities, while opposing amendments that would have permitted states and localities covered or partially covered by the Act to apply for exemption. She secured passage of the Consumer Goods Pricing Act of 1975, her bill repealing anti-trust exemptions that kept consumer prices artificially high. Jordan also favored a $25 billion extension of the general federal revenue sharing program and worked to toughen its anti-discrimination provisions. In July 1976, she became the first black and the first woman to deliver a key note address to the Democratic National Convention. The following year she co-sponsored legislation to extend the state ratification deadline for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment from 1979 to 1986.

In December 1977, Jordan announced that she would not be a candidate for reelection the following year. In 1979 she became a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin. In August 1994, President Bill Clinton awarded Ms. Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nations highest civilian honor. Sadly, On January 17, 1996, in Austin, Texas, Ms. Jordan gently passed away.

Her riveting Watergate testimony in 1974 inspired American's attention on the strength and foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America. She was an educator at The University of Texas at Austin/LBJ School of Public Affairs (1979-96) and, respectfully as Governor Ann Richards' counsel on ethics. Many also remember well the way she captivated listeners with her powerful voice, oratorical skills, and her ability to clarify complex moral issues of the day.

Throughout her life, Barbara Jordan instilled in Americans everywhere the hope for ethical leadership and racial equality and harmony.

Reference: Black Americans in Congress 1870-1989

These are the kind of politicians we need in this country, not PC bastards only interested in cultivating the illegal alien vote.

WOW! Thanks for posting zeezil! Barbara Jordan was a great lady--not our typical politician. (Remember when she ran for president? Boy, that was a long time ago!!) Obviously, no one took any of what she said seriously. If these recommendations had been implemented back then, there would be no need for ALIPAC now!