Thread: Border & Immigration Issues -Sen Jon Kyl

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/border.cfm
Border & Immigration Issues

Securing the borders of the United States to protect against the entry of terrorists, drug smugglers, and illegal aliens – while keeping them open for legitimate visitors and commerce – is one of my highest priorities.

The Need for Immigration Reform and Improved Border Security

The security of the United States and its citizens should be the first and foremost consideration in formulating border and immigration policies. Before the September 11 attacks, some people believed that it was not necessary to either effectively control our borders or collect important information about foreign visitors and other immigrants welcomed into our country. September 11 demonstrated the flaw in that thinking: Knowing whether terrorists are trying to enter the country, and whether visitors abide by their visas and respect our laws, are legitimate issues to be addressed in counterterrorism and immigration policies.

Consider the profound effects that legal and illegal immigration can have. When people enter the country legally, they demonstrate their respect for our laws. We welcome foreign visitors to Arizona, who appreciate our wonderful climate, natural treasures, and southwestern hospitality, and support our local economy. When foreign workers enter legally, they can be matched with certain hard-to-fill or specialty jobs, offering skills to improve our communities, while earning a decent wage and having the chance to enjoy the American dream. Family reunification can be facilitated when people, in good faith, abide by our laws as they seek entry into our country.

By contrast, illegal entry creates a series of problems. Our natural environment is damaged by many thousands of illegal border crossers, who trample sensitive lands and leave tons of trash behind them. Local governments are forced to devote an increasing share of scare resources to deal with illegal immigrants, as well as combating violent human traffickers and criminals who cross our border to take advantage of our open society – which in turn diminishes the ability of local governments to provide improved resources for their own citizens. Health care providers, who are obligated by Federal law to provide emergency care to illegal aliens regardless of their ability to pay, are compelled to cut back or eliminate emergency services, which impacts the ability of Arizonans to obtain care from hospitals and physicians.

Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, or sanctioning such behavior, undermines the rule of law in our country. It mocks those who wait patiently, sometimes for years, to enter the U.S. through legal channels. It encourages more people to immigrate illegally with the expectation that they, too, might benefit from some future amnesty. Any reform of our nation’s immigration laws should be careful to avoid amnesty by any name.


Mitigating the Costs of Illegal Immigration to Local Communities

When the federal government fails to secure the border, immigration-related costs to state and local governments, and American citizens, can skyrocket. For example, a study by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition estimated that hospitals in Arizona were required to provide a whopping $100 million to $200 million a year in uncompensated health care for illegal aliens.

Think what that means to health-care delivery in Arizona. A mother about to deliver her baby may encounter clogged emergency rooms and long wait times because hospitals must devote scarce resources to also treat illegal aliens. Since they are not compensated for the care they are required to provide, hospitals have only a few choices: pass on the costs to paying patients (usually American citizens); absorb the costs; or limit (or eliminate) services they provide to the community.

Recognizing that health-care providers and state and local governments are required to bear these costs because of the federal government’s failure to secure the borders, Congress has begun to provide reimbursement. Before 2001, Congress reimbursed some of the states that were most affected by illegal immigration just $25 million a year; Arizona’s hospitals were unable to obtain a significant portion of that funding. That changed when, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee and a member of the House-Senate conference committee on the Medicare prescription-drug bill, I won passage of $1 billion through 2007 to reimburse hospitals for the federally mandated, but uncompensated, emergency medical care they provide to illegal immigrants. And I made sure Arizona is finally assured a fair allocation of those funds. I have continued to pressure the Mexican government to expeditiously accept the transfer of stabilized Mexican patients from Arizona hospitals when those Mexicans are illegally in the U.S. and unable to pay for their care.

Aside from uncompensated health-care costs, communities are also required to bear the costs of arresting, prosecuting, and jailing illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. According to a study by the University of Arizona, those costs amounted to as much as $125 million per year – and that was just in the 28 southwestern border counties in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. I have recently introduced legislation (described below) that would ensure the Federal government reimburses States and localities for the costs incurred in dealing with such criminals.

Strengthening the Law

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, and chairman of its Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I have played an active role in improving security along the border. On July 20, 2005, I joined Senator John Cornyn in introducing the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act (CEIRA). Our bill would authorize significant increases in personnel and funds needed to control our borders and to enforce the immigration laws in the interior of the U.S. CEIRA contains overdue fixes to numerous long-standing problems. Among other things, it would prevent the release of dangerous criminal aliens until they were removed from the U.S.; combat document fraud through increased training; enhance detention space to deter illegal migration; and reimburse Arizona for the funds expended enforcing Federal immigration laws. CEIRA would also ensure the immigration laws are enforced at the workplace, by requiring employers to accept only improved identity and work eligibility documents, increasing penalties and fines against non-compliant employers, and providing funding for a corps of worksite investigators. CEIRA contains a temporary worker program that would allow businesses to employ foreign laborers on a temporary basis after proving that no U.S. workers are available. It will also call on foreign governments to do their part by agreeing with the U.S. in bilateral agreements to quickly accept repatriation of their citizens who are illegally in the U.S., assisting in reducing criminal gangs and human trafficking, and controlling illegal immigration.


CEIRA does not offer an amnesty to illegal aliens – they would have to depart the U.S. within 5 years, and are encouraged to depart earlier through a series of inducements. Like many Arizonans, I do not believe that foreign nationals should profit from having illegally entered the U.S. by converting their status to that of lawful permanent residents (which is the pathway to citizenship). If “amnesty” means anything, it means receiving an advantage for citizenship from illegal activity.

CEIRA is one of the latest bills that I have cosponsored to solve our immigration problems; but I’ve been working to secure the borders and to ensure the integrity of the immigration system for years. Among other things, I wrote the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that boosted the number of Border Patrol agents to protect our borders. I also secured over $200 million for the Customs Service to hire more inspectors and procure more high-tech equipment to help detect terrorists. I helped write the Border Security and Enhanced Visa Entry Reform Act with a bipartisan group of senators. The Act significantly overhauled visa-processing and border policies, and speeded the implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program. US-VISIT has now been implemented at all air, sea and land ports through which visitors to the U.S. are permitted to enter.

I have worked every fiscal year from 1995 through 2006 to improve and increase U.S. assets on the southern border through a variety of appropriations bills. I have secured increased funding for Border Patrol vehicles, patrol stations, equipment, and infrastructure; border fences and vehicle barriers; detention facilities and bed space; SENTRI lanes; records modernization; interior enforcement; and additional legal staff to process criminal aliens.

The latest appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security includes funding for a host of initiatives that I have long advocated for Arizona. These include a total of nearly $9 billion for securing the nation’s borders with increased personnel. Those monies include $1.7 billion for hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents and $1.4 billion to increase detention capacity. The appropriation also funds a variety of other projects I have sponsored, dedicating $1.3 billion to DHS investigations and intelligence programs, adding 250 additional investigators to enforce worksite and other immigration laws, and supporting the $536 million expansion of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s air and marine capabilities. Further, $35 million is appropriated for the construction of tactical infrastructure along the Arizona border, such as roads, barriers and lights. These investments, known as “force multipliers,” will dramatically improve the Border Patrol’s ability to reach and provide coverage of the more remote sections of the desert. They will be augmented by the construction of new Border Patrol stations in Willcox and Sonoita, providing bases for operations as well as processing and detention facilities. A total of $3.3 billion is included for first responder grants and assistance; $40 million for grants to States to implement the REAL ID Act of 2005, which standardizes requirements for state-issued drivers’ licenses and makes them harder to counterfeit; $1.3 billion in grants to support state, local and urban governments’ efforts to equip, train and exercise personnel and assess their levels of emergency preparedness; $400 million for local law enforcement grants related to terrorism prevention; and $655 million in grants for upgrades and improvements for local firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other first responders. Finally, the bill sets aside $340 million to continue the development of US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT).

For More Information

As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, I invite you to visit the Subcommittee’s website to learn about additional efforts I’ve undertaken to better control our nation’s borders, fight terrorism, and improve homeland security.

Originally Posted by Kyl

Securing the borders of the United States to protect against the entry of terrorists, drug smugglers, and illegal aliens – while keeping them open for legitimate visitors and commerce – is one of my highest priorities.

Yet you voted against funding the border fence you voted for a few months earlier.

There is no desire to secure the border, if there was it would have already happened.

CEIRA does not offer an amnesty to illegal aliens – they would have to depart the U.S. within 5 years, and are encouraged to depart earlier through a series of inducements.

Sorry, allowing them to stay for 5 years will not work. We demand that our immigration laws be enforced now, without rewarding illegal activity. Yes, allowing them up to five years to depart is rewarding them. If you rob a bank, you do not get to walk our streets free for five years before being forced into prison.

Let's be honest here. During those five years people like Sen. Durbin, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. McCain, etc. will be submitting admendment after amendment until one is approved that allows those under the five year agreement to be put on a path to citizenship - you're not fooling anyone. You guys must think the American public is nothing but a bunch of dummies!

Perhaps you didn't hear me the first time - WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DEMAND THAT OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS BE ENFORCED NOW!!

I wonder how many anchor babies that would induce them to have in five years?

So Much for Promises - Quotes Re 1965 Immigration Act
By Joseph E. Fallon

[James Fulford writes: We're republishing Joe Fallon's list of broken promises, because a variety of people in Congress, (Mike Pence, for example) are making new ones, not counting Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who's making the same ones he made last time. Many of the people who made these promises are now dead. Eugene McCarthy died of old age, but before died, he said that he and the other Senators "never intended to open the floodgates. "Robert F. Kennedy didn't live long enough to see the results of is underestimate of Asian immigration, to quote from Alien Nation, "tragically, Robert Kennedy himself was to be assassinated by an immigrant counted by the INS as Asian."]

The Social Contract (Spring 1999)

By Joseph E. Fallon [PDF]

Since the 1965 Immigration Act went into effect, more than 30 million immigrants, most from non-European, Third World countries have poured into the United States. Today, most of the U.S. population growth is due to these immigrants, and their offspring. These results contradict promises made to American citizens by the Act's Congressional Sponsors, as revealed in their own words
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY)

"In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States. … Total quota immigration is now 156,782; under the proposed bill, it would rise to 164,482. Even if all these immigrants came from Italy, for example, the net effect would be to increase the number of Italo-Americans by one-tenth of 1 percent of our population this year, and less as our population increases. Americans of Italian extraction now constitute about 4 percent of our population; at this rate, considering our own natural increase, it would take until the year 2000 to increase that proportion to 6 percent. Of course, S.500 would make no such radical change. Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total-16,500-with the possible exception of the two countries now sending more than that number, Great Britain and Germany. But the extreme case should set to rest any fears that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic makeup of the United States. … [w]e bar immigration by those individuals who would compete for jobs for which the supply of labor is adequate for the demand … we bar immigration by individuals who have demonstrated that they do not hold such allegiance [to our fundamental precepts of political freedom and democratic government]. … If it is true that those from northern Europe, as individuals, can make greater contributions to this country than can others, then this legislation will bring them here. If the legislation does not bring them here, then the assumptions on which defenders of the present system rely are wholly false. … [S.500] will facilitate the entry of skilled specialists … the level of immigration now proposed is far less than that thought 'assimilable' by the most restrictionist Congress [1924] in our history. … As far as the quota system, it [S.500] increases it about 9,000 and as far as a practical matter, it increases it about 50,000. It is not a large number."(Senate Part 1, Book 2, pp.216-218, 226, 242)

Senator Philip Hart (D-MI)

"… the notion was created that somehow or another, 190 million [the population of the U.S. in 1965] is going to be swallowed up. None of us would want that, this bill does not seek to do it and the bill could not do it."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.29)
Senator Hiram Fong (D-HI)

"… the people who have built up America, Anglo-Saxons, and the northern peoples of Europe, are not discriminated against in this bill. … the people from that part of the world [the Asia-Pacific Triangle] probably will never reach 1 percent of the [U.S.] population. … Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.… It will become more cosmopolitan but still there is that fundamental adherence to European culture. … We feel those people [from northern Europe] who have been preferred in former immigration bills would still be treated fairly. … one of the reasons why the United States was attacked, on December 7, 1941, was because of these exclusionary laws [the 1924 Immigration Act] which had fomented so much bad feeling between the peoples of Japan and the United States."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp.72, 119, 120, 144)

Senator Hugh Scott (R-PA)

"I do not think it [S.500] amounts to a serious increase in the number of persons admitted … I have read the statements of the Malthusian pessimists, and they may be right, of course, but I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states … I do not believe an increase of 66,000 opens the door wide."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.136)

Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach

"This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the number of newcomers permitted to come to America. this bill would retain all the present security and health safeguards of the present law. the overall effect of this bill on employment would, first of all, be negligible, and second, that such effect as might be felt would not be harmful, but beneficial. The actual net increase in total immigration under this bill would be about 60,000. Those immigrants who seek employment are estimated at a maximum of 24,000. Our present labor force, however, is 77 million. Statistically or practically, we are talking about an infinitesimal amount; 24,000 is about three one-hundredths of 1 percent of 77 million a good part of even these 24,000 additional workers would not even be competitors for jobs held or needed by Americans. I would expect very little change in the immigration from the Western Hemisphere."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp.8, 13-14, 31)

Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"…the maximum allotment of numbers in any one fiscal year could not exceed the sum of all immigration quotas in effect on the date of enactment of the bill, roughly 166,000. Immigration now comes in limited volume and includes a relatively high proportion of older people and persons of high skill and training. The significance of immigration for the United States now depends less on the number than on the quality of the immigrants Under present circumstances our country has a rare opportunity to draw migrants of high intelligence and ability from abroad. I think the average immigration from the Western Hemisphere over the past 5 years has been about 125,000 a year. We do not anticipate a large increase in those nonquota applications The opportunities here in the United States, the opportunities which attract immigration, are the more sophisticated opportunities, for the educated, for the trained, for the industrial worker, for the technician, for those who can enter into a more sophisticated part in our life than they could if they came in without skills and without any training "(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 48, 50, 52)

Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz

"[S.500] would promote the admission of individuals with qualifications and occupations needed in the United States without disturbing the domestic employment situation."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p. 84) Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Anthony J. Cerebrezze

"With the exception of the provisions relating to epilepsy and certain mental conditions this legislation does not alter the qualitative standards for immigration which prevent the entry of those whom we can, in justice and in logic, exclude. It preserves our national security and our domestic welfare; it continues to exclude subversives; it retains the provisions of existing law which makes aliens who become public charges deportable."(Senate Part 12, Book 2, p. 334)
Senator Claiborne Pell (R-RI)

"[S.500] sets the limit of how many people we think are desirable to keep the mix I may be wrong. Maybe there will be a huge surge from India or a huge surge from Africa, but I would tend to doubt it."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, pp. 561,563)

Senator Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ)

"S.500 does not open the gates to all aliens applying for immigration. Any bar to true assimilation is ours, not theirs [the immigrants]. It is how we welcome to our country, not how much they [the immigrants] want to be welcomed."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, pp. 567, 569)
Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (D-CA)

"Under the proposed bill, the total number of immigrants remains approximately the same "(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 576)

Senator E. L. (Bob) Bartlett (D-AK)

"The bill does not seek to increase to any great extent the annual number of new immigrants we admit."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 851)
Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

"…while the national origins rule will be eliminated in establishing quotas for foreign countries, this does not mean that the bill would permit a floodtide of new immigrants into this country. As a matter of fact, the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 853)
Senator Eugene J. McCarthy (D-MN)

"The proposed legislation would not greatly increase the number of immigrants "(Senate Part 2, Book 3, 854) Senator Pat McNamara (D-MI)

"Total quota numbers available will be only slightly increased."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 855)

Senator Frank E. Moss (D-UT)

"I emphasize that this bill would not attempt to make any drastic changes in our overall immigration numbers."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 856)
Senator William Proxmire (D-WI)

"S.500 does not let down the bars completely It would not substantially increase the total number of immigrants to be admitted to the United States. It would not reduce the security safeguards for keeping out political undesirable. It would not diminish the requirements designed to keep out persons likely to become public charges."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 857)
Nicholas S. Limperis, National Chairman, AHEPA [Greek-American organization] Immigration Legislative Committee

"This bill emphasizes not primarily increased immigration but equality of opportunity for all people to reach this Promised Land."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 381)
Joseph A. L. Errigo, acting chairman

Sons of Italy National Committee

"S.500 does not repeal the McCarran-Walter Act [immigration act of 1952]. It merely amends it. The overall picture outside of the amendment provided by S.500 will remain more or less the same."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 416)

Mike M. Masaoka, Washington representative

Japanese American Citizens League

"…the 1924 exclusion act against just the Japanese contributed to the downfall of the democratic liberal elements in Japan and allowed the militarists, the jingoists, the imperialists to take over and lead Japan on the dreadful path of World War II. none of us should take for granted that S.500 is the ultimate in immigration law let us recognize even this law cannot wipe out the widespread favoritism for Europeans, which has existed in our law."(Senate Part 2, Book 2, pp. 628, 629) "Let's make no mistake about this. This legislation is in the national interests of the United States and not necessarily for other countries "(HR Book 1, p. 222)

Jack Wong Sing, Director,

West Coast District, National Chinese Welfare Council

"Let it not be said that Chinese immigration would be opened. Under the pending proposals, any increase in volume of immigration of the Chinese would still be limited "(Senate Part 2, Book 2, p. 727)
James B. Carey, President

International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (IUE) and Secy-Treas. of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Dept.

"S.500 will do little or nothing to add to unemployment. We estimate that by the fifth year of operation only about 24,000 quota immigrants will have joined the labor force each year. At that time, we will have a labor force of 86 million. The newcomers will constitute three-thousandths of 1 percent of that group of workers we can expect that a good number of these immigrants will bring badly needed skills to this country."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 470)

Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"This bill [HR 2580] itself draws some distinctions in favor of, gives preferences to certain types of people in terms of talent and training It is not one which others have objected to. We haven't had any indication of disagreement on that from abroad, from any government, certainly We are dealing here with a level of immigration that is fully within our ability to absorb, and our needs as a Nation to receive. we do not get the impression that 3 billion people are all at the starting line, waiting to take off to come to this country, juste as soon as the bill is passed."(HR Book 1, pp. 97, 105, 105)

Representative Spark M. Matsunaga (D-HI)

"The administration bill is a revolutionary one, but it is not as revolutionary as some have claimed or believe it to be. It would change the basis for allotting immigrant visas but it does not provide for an overwhelming increase in immigration as some people seem to fear. It provides for a quota increase of less than 8,000. Actual immigration, counting nonquota and quota immigrants, would be increased around 50,000 or roughly 17 percent over current average annual immigration of around 300,000. This is certainly not a throwing open of the floodgates."(HR Book 1, p. 200)

Representative Richard S. Schweiker (R-PA)

"The administration bill favors nations of Latin America and North America. It favors nations of northern Europe."(HR Book 1, p. 204)

Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI)

"The new bill makes no change whatsoever in the safeguards of our present immigration laws which prohibit the admission of Communists, other subversives, security risks, narcotic addicts, and persons with criminal record. It provides controls to protect our domestic labor market."(HR Book 2, p. 407)
Representative Richard L. Ottinger (D-NY)

"This bill emphasizes needed skills whereas existing legislation virtually ignores them."(HR Book 2, p. 417)

Representative Patsy T. Mink (D-HI)

"…this bill is but a step in the right direction. It is estimated that in the total 5-year period 679,663 of the 828,805 persons entering the United States will come from Europe "(HR Book 2, p. 420)

Source of the above Senate quotes Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eight-Ninth Congress, First Session, on S.500 to Amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and For Other Purposes. Part 1 February/March; Part 2 March/June/July/August 1965 Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Source of House of Representative (HR) quotes Hearing Before Subcommittee No. 1, Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Eight-Ninth Congress, First Session on H.R. 2580 "To Amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act and For Other Purposes," March/April/May/June 1965. Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Finally, on October 3, at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, in signing H.R. 2580 into law (Public Law 89-236), President Lyndon Johnson stated: “…this is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives…” (Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 89th Congress, lst Session, 1965, Volume XXI, p.479, Congressional Quarterly Service, Inc.)

Joseph E. Fallon writes from Rye, New York.