Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Again Passes Border and Visa Security Legislation
Sensenbrenner's press release. ^ | 3/12/2002 | James Sensenbrenner

Posted on 03/12/2002 5:27:41 PM PST by hchutch

WASHINGTON, March 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The House today by a 275-137 margin passed legislation providing critical visa and border security safeguards. These protections, already passed by the House without opposition on December 19, 2001, have been held up by Democratic opposition in the Senate.

"This legislation provides vital changes to our immigration laws to fight terrorism and prevent exploitation by some illegal aliens who wish to harm Americans. It builds upon enhanced data sharing requirements in the PATRIOT Act and includes key changes to our immigration laws such as requiring new biometric visas and strengthening the foreign student tracking system," stated House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.). "It's time for the Senate Leadership to act on this legislation. The visa and border security provisions passed almost three months ago and we've seen zero movement by the Senate."

Visa and border security highlights include:

-- Strengthening the foreign student tracking system by requiring that it track: 1) the acceptance of aliens by educational institutions; 2) the issuance of visas to the aliens; 3) the admission into the U.S. of the aliens and the notification of these educational institutions of the admittance of these aliens; and 4) the enrollment of the aliens at the institutions.

-- Requiring the State Department by October 26, 2003 to only issue to aliens visas and other travel documents that are tamper-resistant and machine-readable using standardized biometric identifiers. Aliens entering the U.S. under the visa waiver program will have to possess passports with the same features (if issued after this date). By the same date (October 26, 2003) the INS must install scanners to read the biometric documents at all ports of entry. The INS must implement an integrated entry and exit data system (for nationals of countries other than Canada) containing arrival and departure data from these documents.

-- Requiring U.S. embassies and consulates to utilize terrorist lookout committees in order to ensure that the names of known terrorists are routinely and consistently brought to the attention of consular officials.

-- Barring nationals of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism from receiving temporary visas unless it has been determined that the aliens do not pose a threat to the safety of Americans or the national security of the U.S.

-- Providing an electronic data system that allows current and immediate access for consular officers and INS officials to information in databases of U.S. law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community.

-- Authorizing an additional 200 INS inspectors and 200 INS investigative personnel for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Also increases the pay and training of INS personnel, including Border Patrol agents, and beefs up consular offices at U.S. embassies. $150 million is authorized for the INS for improving technology at the border.

Today's legislation also included a temporary extension of the 245(i) immigration program. H.R. 1885 will allow qualifying illegal aliens to utilize section 245(i) as long as they have green card petitions filed on their behalf by the earlier of November 30, 2002, or four months after the date the Attorney General issues implementing regulations. It also requires that aliens must have entered the family relationships qualifying them for permanent residence by August 14, 2001. Under H.R. 1885, section 245(i) is a temporary program that will not become a permanent part of U.S. immigration law. A similar extension of the 245(i) program passed the House on May 21, 2001 by a 336-43 margin.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hr1885; immigration; sensenbrenner
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last
To: hchutch
"Yes, there is brief amnesty, but it would go for a limited time...

The issue of any amnesty being offered is an affront to those of us who expect our borders to be enforced, as per US law. As it is, this legislation STILL rewards those circumventers of US immigration laws who thumbed their noses at the INS, while defying the will of the American people.

And that's supposed to be acceptable?

41 posted on 03/12/2002 6:29:54 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Actually, that was simple. We can't afford to be dependant on foreign steel any more than we can rely on foreign oil.

In case you didn't know, planes, ships, tanks, and guns that our troops use are made with steel or something close to that. The decision to impose the tariffs was motivated by the same thing that's motivating Bush to open ANWR for exploration and drilling - national security.

42 posted on 03/12/2002 6:31:32 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Much as I respect your opinion, we have been subjected to a solid week of hearing about how 9 million immigrants were going to be given a blanket amnesty. Those of us who have been attacked are getting a bit testy.

Now I can appreciate that this does give a pass to someone who violated the law, and I would rather we had another option. Personally, I think Daschle is being forced to pass this bill BECAUSE the amnesty is on it.

43 posted on 03/12/2002 6:32:55 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
The law is always negotiable, always up for grabs, especially when there's a political objective ... the possibility of getting "65%" or so of what you want? The problem with our immigration laws is that no one takes them seriously, certainly not Congress, which passes them. This has to change if our leaders are serious about security. Oh, and that little oath the president and Congress takes, which talks about upholding the Constitution (and, by implication, the laws of the land), when did that become subject to political compromise? If the INS can't process paper, then Congress needs to address that (perhaps, when 11 of its committees are done holding "hearings" on Enron, when it's done nationalizing the airport screeners, or when its done handing our free prescription drugs ... perhaps one day it will get around to the INS and make it a priority).
44 posted on 03/12/2002 6:35:03 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Gee, perhaps people are not informed! OR, perhaps they don't WANT to be informed!

Right you are. Facts are confusing and inconvenient things, anyway.

It's much more fun for some people (on another thread) to hold their collective breath, get red in the face, stomp their feet, and scream that Bush has lost their vote forever.

As if they had EVER voted for Bush anyway.

45 posted on 03/12/2002 6:37:05 PM PST by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Thanks for this sorely needed post.
46 posted on 03/12/2002 6:37:06 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Well, do you have a better idea of getting the other provisions through a Democratic Senate? We'd have the illegals in here with forged documents otherwise, and we'd have far fewer INS people WITHOUT this legislation. This bill gets 2,000 INS inspectors and investigators, and we get a database any law enforcement agency canuse to find out if someone they come across is an illegal immigrant.

The other provisions are pretty damn good, IMHO. Probably more important in the long term than that four-month grace period. The only option we have is to box `em in. I don't see any better ideas.

Do you have any constructive solutions, bearing in mind we're currently stretched somewhat thin due to the war on terror?

47 posted on 03/12/2002 6:38:16 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
From what I can tell, this bill addresses some of those problems, and was passed once by the House, without the amnesty. Daschle has held it up, so they passed it again WITH the amnesty. Daschle now has a decision to make.

I suppose if Daschle sits on this bill, all the anti-immigration people will call him a hero, even though the bill will also improve border security and immigration controls.

Because we all know Daschle has principles.

48 posted on 03/12/2002 6:39:59 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Political calculations, and laying this at the feet of Daschle, are not acceptable to me. The president has wanted to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants for some time now. While this is not that, the message is undeniable. Now, either we're a changed country since 9/11 or we're not. If we cannot control our borders (and by that I don't mean end immigration but enforce the very laws Congress passes and the president signs), then we've not learned enough. Gov. Ridge announced today that we remain under a code yellow. American citizens who do not meet any of the criteria for terrorists are being strip searched at airports. The FBI has increased access to our phone conversations. We are all expected to sacrifice certain liberties for security, and I'm for that (depending on the liberty and the security). But a failure to tighten our borders, and better enforce our immigration laws, while constantly warning Americans about the (real) threats that exist in our own backyards, is inconsistent and unacceptable. American citizens are expect to comply with an increasing number of security requirements, and compliance with the law should be a requisite to any alien receiving any form of legalization in our country.
49 posted on 03/12/2002 6:41:21 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Thank you so much for posting this. I knew there had to be more to it than what I was reading on the other thread. I feel a lot better about this now. On to CFR!
50 posted on 03/12/2002 6:41:40 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Look, I don't have all the answers, and neither does the President. Sorry to ruin your evening more than it already is, but that's the fact we have to deal with. Welcome to the real world.

Do we take a short-term hit to get stuff more important in the long term? I say we should. The other provisions in this bill are pretty good. Is the bill perfect? No. But seeing as the visa and border provisions that EVERYONE here seems to want are not going anywhere on their own, we've got to find a way to get them through.

Do you have any better ideas, given the conditions (objective AND political) that we have right now? I'm open for suggestions.

51 posted on 03/12/2002 6:42:36 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
I guess that we won't see each other at another BusH rally. On the contrary. I greatly admire our President but on this issue we part ways.
52 posted on 03/12/2002 6:43:38 PM PST by StarFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Did you not pay ANY attention? The amnesty bill was attached to this Visa Security bill at the last freakin minute. To pass the good part you had to pass the destructive part. BUSH DID THIS.

Now no sleeper terrorist has to worry about being deported or picked up because his visa is expired, he can pay a grand and get his green card and he is home free. Can't touch him.

Not to mention rewarding lawbreakers, bringing in third worlders with an agenda and giving them a voters registration card. Good grief man.

53 posted on 03/12/2002 6:45:52 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
This bill won't pass Robert Byrd and the Senate. Every report I've read tonight quotes Byrd's spokesman as saying this. So why do you persist in presenting your argument as some reasonable alternative to complying with the law as it now exists? Byrd wouldn't allow the security measures alone to pass his objection, security measures that are dearly needed. He says he won't allow them through with the more offensive extension. There's nothing practical or principled about your argument. That's the state of play, not as you profess it.
54 posted on 03/12/2002 6:46:02 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
What a ridiculous comment. Sticking by your principles? WHAT principles? The principle of mass round-up and deportation? The principle that at no time should one have some compassion for immigrants? An amnesty means that they admit they were in violation of the law. They must pay a fine and register with INS. So, exactly what principle is being violated here?

Your reply is so Clintonesque. It depends on what the definition of is is or lawbreakers as in this case.

55 posted on 03/12/2002 6:46:11 PM PST by healey22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
In other words, making the bill MORE untenable and less likely to pass the Senate is not satisfactory, no matter how you slice it.
56 posted on 03/12/2002 6:48:12 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
So, when Byrd also refuses this bill, and Bush can go before the country and say that the Senate is holding up TWO bills on protecting the borders, and when he can also get the Hispanics mad at the democrats, this is a bad thing?
57 posted on 03/12/2002 6:54:08 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
With all due respect toward the "other provisions", which may indeed be beneficial, the single provision of amnesty for illegals is IMO UNacceptable. Furthermore, I find it troubling that this single controversial issue was tied to bolstering stronger security measures. And BTW, the utilization "forged" documents is already epidemic.

Have you any idea what this scheme of wholesale amnesty will cost us in the long run, beside the loss of respect of our government by it's own citizens? The fact is the "people's" opinion is inconsequential and superceded by the opinion of El Senor Fox.

Solution? Why not simply aggresively deport ALL illegals and start from scratch? Answer: Because it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT.

58 posted on 03/12/2002 6:57:09 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Solution? Why not simply aggresively deport ALL illegals and start from scratch? Answer: Because it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT.

Because the economy would crumble, like it or not.

59 posted on 03/12/2002 6:59:25 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
It's kinda frustrating, but right now, I see one of two scenarios:

The Dems cave and pass it and we get good visa and border security provisions, or they bottle it up in the Senate and we et to play the race card on THEM for a change. If it makes you feel better, call it payback for that James Byrd ad.

I know this might sound Clintonian, but I still remember that Florida debacle and the lengths they went to. Presenting the Dems with a Faustian bargain either way they go is nowhere close to the stuff Gore and his people pulled during their effort to steal the Florida in the 2000 election.

If I could avoid politics, I would. But unfortunately, the left doesn't give me that option. With what they have done to Pickering and the lengths they went to in Florida in 2000, I'm stuck with following this stuff when I'd rather be following my favorite sports teams (the Chicago Bears and Milwaukee Brewers). But the left didn't give me that option, and they're going to fight as dirty as they have to so they can keep their power and tell me how to live my life.

I want to see Daschle as minority leader in 2003, and in private life in 2005. If that means I have to give him a Faustian bargain like this, then so be it. I find it much more ethical than the stunts the Dems pull.

By the way, I don't see a response to my post #42. Did I answer your objections to the steel tariff adequetely?

60 posted on 03/12/2002 7:07:13 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson