THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
This bill places a priority on having those kinds of resources. It also gives us the ability to improve our monitoring of foreign nationals who are present in the United States, and consulate offices who issue visas will be required to transmit electronic versions of visa files to the INS so that critical information is available. This is a key response to September 11 when the State Department was issuing visas and those who had the responsibility for enforcement had no knowledge of
[Page: H2141] GPO's PDF
This legislation also gives greater direction to the integrated entry and exit system established in 1996 by IIRIRA, including use of specific technology standards and technologies to facilitate across the border. What this does is it provides the INS with state-of-the-art technology at the borders. It also provides a working relationship, as I said, with the Secretary of State, the State Department, and consulate offices.
Gaps still exist in the monitoring of foreign students, but this legislation again puts student tracking on the list by doing the following: it expands the monitoring to include flight schools, language training schools, and vocational schools. It seems interesting that when we had the testimony of those who owned the flight schools in Florida, that trained the terrorists of September 11, it did not strike them as funny or somewhat unique that these individuals would want only a specific type of training, training that did not require landing or taking off. I believe with a more secure tracking and notice of these individuals, more serious questions will be asked when individuals come for unique training in the United States. We certainly are open to students, but we recognize that we must be cautious and diligent in that kind of training.
Let me simply say to my colleagues that this bill is an important bill, but this bill went to the Senate, the other body, with 245(i), and that is a bill that dealt with the reunification of families. The bill had been vetted, it had been studied, it had been subject to review here in the House, and that bill still stands idle without attention. The lack of attention to 245(i) does not serve us well, Madam Speaker. It is simply a bill that will allow for the adjustments of individuals who are here, who are accessing legalization, without them having to return to their country, maybe a country, of course, where they are jeopardized, or it may be a country where they are under threat of persecution.
Therefore, it is important that 245(i) get its hearing here in the United States Congress. We need to pass 245(i). It is of great importance that we allow those who are standing in line, thousands who are standing in line for the right kind of access to legalization, who are here with the kind of support systems and family members who can help them access legalization; 245(i) needs to pass.
Let me conclude my remarks by simply acknowledging an article by Daniel T. Griswold entitled ``Don't Blame Immigrants for Terrorism'' dated October 23, 2001. I would like to submit this for the RECORD and conclude my remarks by saying that this border security bill speaks to immigration as it should be spoken to, and that is a fair balance of ensuring that there is access to those immigrants who are fairly and legally accessing this country and access to those who are trying to earn access to legalization without the overall veil that immigration equates to terrorism .
I believe that this is an important legislative initiative, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation enthusiastically. I ask to submit this article into the RECORD: ``Don't Blame Immigrants for Terrorism'' by Daniel T. Griswold.
Don't Blame Immigrants for Terrorism
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the U.S. government must strengthen its efforts to stop terrorists or potential terrorists from entering the country. But those efforts should not result in a wider effort to close our borders to immigrants.
Obviously, any government has a right and a duty to ``control its borders'' to keep out dangerous goods and dangerous people. The U.S. federal government should implement whatever procedures are necessary to deny entry to anyone with terrorist connections, a criminal record, or any other ties that would indicate a potential to commit terrorist acts.
This will require expanding and upgrading facilities at U.S. entry points so that customs agents and immigration officials can be notified in a timely manner of persons who should not be allowed into the country. Communications must be improved between law enforcement, intelligence agencies and border patrol personnel. Computer systems must be upgraded to allow effective screening without causing intolerable delays at the border. A more effective border patrol will also require closer cooperation from Mexico and Canada to prevent potential terrorists from entering those countries first in an attempt to then slip across our long land borders into the United States.
Long-time skeptics of immigration, including Pat Buchanan and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, have tried in recent days to turn those legitimate concerns about security into a general argument against openness to immigration. But immigration and border control are two distinct issues. Border control is about who we allow to enter the country, whether on a temporary or permanent basis; immigration is about whom we allow to stay and settle permanently.
Immigrant are only a small subset of the total number of foreigners who enter the United States every year. According to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 351 million aliens were admitted through INS ports of entry in fiscal year 2000--nearly a million entries a day. That total includes individuals who make multiple entries, for example, tourists and business travelers with temporary and aliens who hold border-crossing cards that allow them to commute back and forth each week from Canada and Mexico.
The majority of aliens who enter the United States return to their homeland after a few days, weeks, or months. Reducing the number of people we allow to reside permanently in the United States would do nothing to protect us from terrorists who do not come here to settle but to plot and commit violent acts. And closing our borders to those who come here temporarily would cause a huge economic disruption by denying entry to millions of people who come to the United States each year for lawful, peaceful (and temporary) purposes.
It would be a national shame if, in the name of security, we were to close the door to immigrants who come here to work and build a better life for themselves and their families. Like the Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center towers stood as monuments to America's openness to immigration. Workers from more than 80 different nations lost their lives in the terrorist attacks. According to the Washington Post, ``The hardest hit among foreign countries appears to be Britain, which is estimating about 300 deaths . . . Chile has reported about 250 people missing, Colombia nearly 200, Turkey about 130, the Philippines about 115, Israel about 113, and Canada between 45 and 70. Germany has reported 170 people unaccounted for, but expects casualties to be around 100.'' Those people were not the cause of terrorism but its victims.
The problem is not that we are letting too many people into the United States but that the government is not keeping out the wrong people. An analogy to trade might be helpful: We can pursue a policy of open trade, with all its economic benefits, yet still exclude goods harmful to public health and safety, such as diseased meat and fruits, explosives, child pornography, and other contraband materials. In the same way, we should keep our borders open to the free flow of people, but at the same time strengthen our ability to keep out those few who would menace the public.
Immigrants come here to realize the American dream; terrorists come to destroy it. We should not allow America's tradition of welcoming immigrants to become yet another casualty of September 11.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to two of the points that have come up during this debate, first with respect to the comments on section 245(i) made by the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). The House of Representatives has passed 245(i) legislation twice, once in May of last year and once in March of this year. The second passage of the 245(i) legislation was coupled with the same visa security and Border Patrol legislation that we are discussing here today.
[Time: 18:15]
The Senate, however, chose to pick this bill without 245(i), without the other bill which had 245(i) in it. That is why we are debating a 245(i)-less bill today. So the decision to hold up 245(i) this time does not rest with the House of Representatives, but, unfortunately, with the other body.
Secondly, with respect to the comments on student visa tracking made by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), he is absolutely right on that, but I would like to amplify the point that he made with one other fact.
Much was said about the fact that Mohammed Atta and one of the other September 11 hijackers had their student visas approved by the INS 6
[Page: H2142] GPO's PDF
What this legislation does is that it provides a student visa tracking system so if someone enters the United States on a student visa and either does not show up at school, drops out of school, gets kicked out of school, or graduates from school, then the INS will know about it and take the appropriate action to make sure that those students return to their home countries.
Had this type of a system proposed by this bill been up and functional on September 11, Mr. Atta and his conspirator would not have been in the United States to go to an American airport to hijack two American planes and to kill thousands of people.
That is why it is important that this bill be passed, so that future Attas who wish to exploit the weaknesses in our visa system and to abuse the hospitality that is extended to them by the American people at American institutions will no longer be able to do so. I urge the House to concur in the Senate amendments.
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, as co-chairman of the House Border Caucus and a representative of South Texas, I rise in support of H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act and thank the House for moving this bill so quickly after Senate passage.
It is an important bill for the security of the nation--and my district sits square on some of the real estate most affected by our border policies. It ensures safety for the people within this country's borders and provides the tools necessary to the U.S. Customs and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to better serve the American people.
Most importantly for the taxpayers in my district, the bill also has a provision to extend the border crossing card deadline for residents along the Southwestern border of the United States. This extension will provide a much-needed boost to the economies that have suffered since the tragic attacks of September 11th.
After the attacks, Congress stopped work on a stand-alone bill with bi-partisan support to extend the deadline for one year to October 1, 2002. With the extension in today's bill, until Oct. 1, 2002, consumers whose lives transverse the border can conduct business normally again. Regular border shoppers can--after we finish this bill--use their border crossing cards to go to school, to go to work, to go shopping, or visit their families. They can once again participate in the border economy.
The Southwestern border is vitally important to the United States. It is the gateway to the United States from Latin and South America. It is the port-of-entry for one of our most valued trading partners, and it represents the rich diversity of immigrants on which this country was founded. This bill is an excellent first step in recognizing that fact.
The Southwestern border, according to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, has a population of 6.2 million people in the U.S. and approximately 4.3 million people in Mexico. The buying power of border residents is immense and the economy of South Texas depends on their participation in our marketplace. In my district alone, 75-80% of Brownsville's downtown retail sales normally come from people crossing the border.
Since September 11th this number has dropped. This same report also cites the border crossing card deadline as one of the main reasons that fewer people are crossing the border. The economic effects of the attacks in September were bad for the country; they were devastating for the Southwestern border.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 3525.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed until tomorrow.
| <<< |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display