Tancredo doubts he can block amnesty-extension bill

Done. As far as I'm concerned, dialogue, if you can call it that is over for me with these characters. They have nothing to offer but insults and childish rantings.

Just lettuce be.

Hey look, 1 percent!

There is one less Mexican eligible for amnesty tonight.

I bagged and tagged him and he is now cooling his heals in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's downtown jail, waiting for his one-way ticket to Mexico in the morning.

Someone contact Utah and let them know that there is a construction job open as of this morning.

Okay, perhaps I mistook your rampant "hate-speech" accusations in the "child beat up by Mexican kids for writing an article against illegal immigration in his school newspaper" thread.

Pssst...I was right. Go check the thread.

When Jack Kemp was Secretary of HUD the City of Costa Mesa, California tried to remove illegal aliens from their taxpayer subsidized housing, figuring that maybe American citizens down on their luck should get a chance to benefit from a program intended to help them. No such luck. Airhead Jack descended on the City and forced them to toe his line, which apparently is that anyone from any part of the world can get cheap rent courtesy of California's taxpayers. Californians attempted to redress this outrage by passing Prop 187, which would have restricted illegal aliens to emergency aid only. But as we know, with the approval of a host of GOP elitists, an ACLU hag sitting on the State bench conspired with Gray Davis to scuttle the law without letting it be reviewed by higher courts.

You(just like Tom Daschle) will always be looking for an issue.

And as it stands YOU and Tom Daschle see eye to eye with our anything goes immigration free for all. Wanna bet that Tom the Commie knows something that you don't?

Aw for Pete's sake, mouthpiece. You link to an "article" on the website of a wetback advocacy law firm as a "source" to back up your claim that FAIR is a racist hate group.

Funny how you missed the link back to FAIR's own website.

I urge you to seek professional help before you snap and kill us all.

You never were one of the bright ones here.

Think that this speech by Tancredo is worth posting? I tried earlier and I couldn't get it for format properly.

I got it formated, in a round-about way.
Although it's long, I think it's worth posting, so here it is.

[Congressional Record: March 7, 2002 (House)]

[Page H772-H777]

From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:cr07mr02-96]

                              IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of

January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is

recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, recently a study was conducted by the GAO,

the General Accounting Office. It was to look into the degree of fraud

in the immigration benefits program. I have oftentimes, Mr. Speaker,

taken the microphone for the purpose of identifying what I believe to

be our serious concerns in this particular agency. There are, of

course, many people who work in this agency, many people who are

assigned especially on the border, assigned with the task of trying to

defend our borders, trying to actually make sure that people do not

come into the country illegally.

  This is an overwhelming task. I commend those people for doing

everything they can to uphold the laws of the United States. But it is

something I have likened to trying to keep back a flood with a sieve

because of the variety of conflicting laws that have been passed by

this Congress, because of the culture within the INS which has

absolutely no support for upholding the laws, the immigration laws of

this land, and because they are just overwhelmed by the numbers. I have

often brought those things to the attention of the Congress. I have

personally been to the border. Several Members and I took a CODEL down

there just a month and a half ago or so. We observed firsthand the

problems that are confronted by our people there on the border. I know

and I sympathize and I understand their problems. They not only face

the daunting task of trying to deal with the hundreds of thousands of

people a day that come into the United States and determine whether or

not they are coming here legally, for what purpose, for how long and

that sort of thing, and they not only face the, as I say, conflicting

laws that have been passed by Congress, some designed to enhance border

security, others designed to degrade it, but they are also, it is

apparent now, working within a system that is broken beyond the ability

for us to fix it. In their own system, they realize that they cannot

look to anyone higher up on the ladder, those people that are there

today who, as I say, are in the trenches, either on the borders or the

people who work in customs, all of them recognize that the system in

which they are operating is broken.

  Recently, I returned from overseas. As my wife and I were going

through customs at JFK in New York, the lady looked up and she said,

``I think I recognize you. I actually watch C-SPAN. I think I recognize

you. Aren't you on?'' I said, ``Yes, I have been on often talking about

immigration-related issues.''

  She just hung her head the minute I said it, she said, ``Oh, yeah,

that's right, it is such a mess. Don't get me started on this. I don't

know where to start. It is a mess.'' Her brief response to the word

immigration, immigration policy, is I think probably the best analogy I

can give you to the whole system. It is a mess. That is the best

example I can give you, the best definition of the system I can give

you. It is a mess. This recent report of the GAO is just the most

recent example of the problem.

  We have actually had over the course of the last 10 years several

reports done by a variety of different agencies all on the INS talking

about the inefficiency in the organization, their inability to get the

job done, even referencing their lack of a true desire to get the job

done.

  Mr. Speaker, the INS, as you know, is divided into two parts at the

present time. They have two different functions within the same

organization. Maybe that is part of the problem, because these

responsibilities conflict with one another. One part of the INS,

Immigration and Naturalization Service, is designed to be what I call

the immigration social work side, that is, to find benefits for people

coming to the United States, hopefully legally, help them get their

green card, help them get visas, all the things that are attendant to

people coming into the United States legally and then being able to

function when they get here. All of that stuff is part of their

responsibility.

  Then on the other side, of course, is the enforcement arm. The INS is

supposed to be the agency to which we go when we say, look, we are

concerned about the number of people coming across the border

illegally; we are concerned about not knowing who is here, when they

are here and what they are doing here and we are supposed to rely on

them to do something about it.

  But, as you know, as most of the Members of this body know, the INS

is completely incapable and to some extent it is not really desirous of

taking on that role. There are literally scores of examples to show

that. The fact that 19 of these hijackers on September 11 came here on

visas, some of them, of course, then expired, some people were here

illegally at the time that it happened and the inability of the INS to

control that process is a dramatic example, one dramatic event that

happened as a result of their inability to actually know who is in the

United States, know for what purpose they are here and know when they

have overstayed their visa, for instance, so that they can in fact be

deported. But the INS pays little, if any, attention; and they will

tell you when you call them and ask them, do you actually go out and

look for people who are here illegally. Their answer is, Well, of

course not. That's not our job.

  I was on the radio not too long ago with a lady who is the

spokesperson for the INS in the Denver area and she said, really, that

is not what they do anymore. They do not go out on sites and look for

people who are here illegally. Really, our job is just to explain to

them why they are here illegally and then help them get benefits. That

was her statement. It was almost incredible, but that was what she

said. That is what they think, that it is not their job. They will say,

well, we do not have the resources, we do not have the time; but what

they actually should add to it is, we do not have the inclination. It

is really not in our makeup. It is not what we want to do. We want to

be the social work side of it. That is what we can do well. We do not

really do this very well, this sort of becoming a policeman. We do not

like that idea. So they shy away from it.

  We have had calls in my office from incredibly frustrated INS

inspectors, from INS agents, sometimes who have been on board for 30

years. The caucus that I head, the Immigration Reform Caucus, has

actually held hearings bringing these people in so they can talk and

vent some of their frustration. It is incredible the stories they tell.

They have every reason to be frustrated, because they work for an

agency that is dysfunctional; and they are trying to do a job that is

not supported by the agency itself. It would drive you nuts. I can

certainly understand it.

  We have had calls from judges who will tell us that they are

immigration law judges, and they are also frustrated by the fact that

day after day after day they see people in front of them who have

committed crimes in the United States besides, by the way, being here,

probably many of them, illegally but they have committed crimes and

they are aliens and so they are ordered to be deported by a judge. But

because they turn that function over to the INS right after the gavel

falls and the person is ordered to be deported, they turn that function

over to the INS and the INS simply looks the other way.

  So at this point in time, we have at least, and I underline at least,

because when you ask the INS for specific information, they come back

with the same response. In fact, it is the logo that I have designed

for the INS. It

[[Page H773]]

should be on their letterhead. It should be on their Web site. When you

click on INS, a little figure should pop up that looks like this, a guy

shrugging his shoulders going, ``I don't know, I'm not sure. Maybe.

Could be.'' Because when you ask them anything, that is exactly what

happens. They respond with, ``I don't know. I'm not sure. Could be.''

When you ask them how many people have actually been ordered to be

deported but have not in fact left the country, you get this: ``I'm not

sure. I don't know.'' Probably around 300,000, they will say, 300,000

people.

  Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about people who are just

here illegally. As we know, that is probably 10 or 11 million people

here illegally. We are not talking about people who have just

overstayed their visas. Certainly they number in the millions, also. We

are talking about people who have violated the law. They have robbed a

bank, they stole money from somebody on the street, they shot somebody,

they raped somebody and then they got arrested. And because of their

violation of an American law, they were ordered to be deported. But

they do not get deported. They walk away. No one has the slightest idea

where they are, 300,000 of them. But the INS says, well, that is not

really my thing, that is not really what I am too interested in. We are

really on the immigration social work side of things. That is where we

concentrate our efforts and that is certainly where we concentrate all

of our resources. We have quadrupled the budget for the INS over the

last several years. Quadrupled. It has gone almost entirely to the

social work side. Very little has gone into defending our borders.

  Time and time again we have seen that the INS has absolutely no

concern about the people who are here illegally. If you call right now,

if a local policeman, for instance, picks somebody up on the street, it

may be a traffic violation, it may be disturbance of the peace,

whatever, and they find that that person is here illegally, they could,

although hardly anyone does anymore because they know it is futile,

they could call the INS and they could say, look, I have someone here

who has done X, Y and Z and they are here illegally. What do you want

me to do? The INS would say, well, go ahead, let them go. Get their

name, and we will try to get back to them. Sometimes even people that

have gone through this process and are ordered to be deported or who

are coming up for their deportation will get a letter, it is actually

called a ``run letter'' in the lexicon because it means the minute you

get it, it says something like, look, we know you have violated the law

so please report here in 2\1/2\ months for deportation.

  Yes, right, thank you, of course I will be there with my bags all

packed. I do not think many people show up. It is called a run letter

for a purpose, because when they get it they run. It is idiotic. Why

should we even waste the stamp? The local law enforcement agency calls

up and says, these people are here illegally and they tell them, let

them go. We have had in Colorado instances where people have been

picked up on the highway for violating some traffic law, the van opens,

there are 15 people inside, they are all illegal. That is when they are

lucky, that is when they have not run off the road and had the van get

into an accident. We have had, of course, many people killed on the

highways. It ended up that they were being transported through the

State of Colorado. It is a big transportation hub, I am told, for

illegal immigration.

  But, of course, we call the INS and nothing happens. They tell them,

we really have not got the time, we have not got the people, so just

forget about it. So at this time very few people actually even do

anything; very few law enforcement agencies do anything like, say, call

the INS because they have got somebody. They know it is futile. They

know there is absolutely no reason to do it. And even after September

11, even after that, we find very little happening inside the INS that

would lead us to believe there is a change of heart, a change of the

culture, an emphasis on trying to actually keep people out of the

country who are here illegally.

  It is incredible that we can say that after the most horrific event

this country has ever experienced in terms of an act of terror, and, I

pray to God, the most horrific event it will ever experience. But, of

course, you and I know, Mr. Speaker, we have been told over and over

and over again by our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence here

in the House, by members of that committee, we have been told by

members of the Armed Forces, we hear it from the Secretary of Defense

almost nightly that, in fact, we probably will be experiencing other

acts of violence of this nature, of terrorism.

  Once again I pray to God that none of them would ever reach the level

of damage as that that occurred on the 11th of September, but we do not

know. We know, we believe, something will happen. We hear that all the

time. There are alerts that are being offered, issued all the time. Yet

even with all of that, we have not been able to get the INS, and this

Congress, as a matter of fact, we have not been able to get anything

out of this Congress that would force the INS to do a better job.

                              {time}  1330

  Amazing. We have responded to the President's call by increasing the

budget for the armed services and for the homeland defense, and I am

totally in favor of it. I vote in favor of very few budget increases on

this floor, but I certainly do vote for increases in the area of

defense for one reason: It is our single responsibility. It is the most

important thing we do here.

  I know it is hard to believe, but I certainly think the Constitution

would back me up when I say it is more important; the defense of this

Nation is more important than health and human services. It is more

important than the education budget. It is more important than

transportation. It is more important than anything else we do. So I am

more than willing to increase the budget for those agencies through my

vote.

  But what is amazing is that we have taken very specific and very

direct action in beefing up the military, and thank God we have. They

will, as the President said so eloquently when he addressed the Nation,

they will always make us proud, and they do. They are fighting overseas

today as we speak. American blood is being shed in foreign lands in

defense of this Nation, and it is the right and proper thing to do.

  Who knows? We may soon be in other countries besides Afghanistan. I

would agree with the proposal that we need to do something wherever

terrorism raises its head or shows its tentacle, whether it is in Iran,

Iraq, Georgia, or the Philippines. Wherever it is, I am willing to say

we should try and go there and stamp it out.

  But why is it, Mr. Speaker, that we are so willing and able as a body

to do that, while we are just as unwilling to do anything significant

to improve our own defenses here in this country? How is it that we can

ignore the fact that we still have people coming across the borders

illegally? We still have thousands of people coming across the border

every single day illegally. We have not really paid much attention to

that. We have paid mostly lip service to it.

  It is, for one thing, a fact of political life that we are concerned

about raising the issue of immigration reform for fear of the political

fallout in the United States. But from whom, I ask, Mr. Speaker. From

whom should we be expecting opposition?

  Yes, certainly from the Democratic Party, because they recognize that

massive immigration will eventually lead to what they believe will lead

to more voters for the Democrat candidate. So they will do anything

they can, and have done everything they can, to stop any sort of

immigration reform, and they want them essentially to come in, legally

or illegally, it does not matter. Eventually, they believe it will

accrue to their political benefit.

  On our side, we, of course, hear from people who are business owners,

who say to us, I have to have these people because no one else will do

the job. So turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Let them come in.

We need them.

  We certainly do not want to be seen as a party that is anti-

immigration, or anti-ethnic group; and certainly, I guarantee my

colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am not either of those two things. I am not

anti-immigration. I certainly have nothing against any ethnic group

coming into this country.

  The issue is, how much, how many, for what purpose, and will we be

able to control it? That is the issue. Do we want open borders? Do we

want the elimination of our borders?

[[Page H774]]

  There are people who, in fact, do. President Vicente Fox has stated

very publicly that he expects in the next 20 years to not have a border

between the United States and Mexico. I have talked with members of his

cabinet who share that exact same vision: The head of a newly created

agency in Mexico that would translate into the Ministry for Mexicans

Living Outside of Mexico, an interesting cabinet level position, I

would certainly say.

  I have talked to Mr. Hernandez, the newly appointed minister in this

particular cabinet level department, and he has stated clearly to me

that he does not believe that there are two countries. He says they are

just a region. That is all. It is not two countries, he says.

  Well, now, this may be a very legitimate debate topic. There may very

well be people on the floor of the House and in the administration in

the United States, and certainly we know in Mexico, who believe that we

should not have borders, that we should meld ourselves into sort of a

United States of the North American continent and beyond, perhaps.

South America, too. A European Union model. I know all of these things

are actually in the sights of many people. That is what they think we

are going to do.

  Well, okay, let us debate that issue, right here, a bill on the

floor. I would like a bill to go the committee of reference to

eliminate the borders and to join hands with all of the people on the

North American continent in some sort of confederation, with common

currency, all of the stuff that the European Union is doing.

  I will vote no, I will tell my colleagues. I will vote no. But that

is okay. That is just my vote. If a majority of the Members of this

body and the President agree, that is the way it will be.

  But what I do not like happening, Mr. Speaker, is that that is

exactly where we are heading, only without any sort of legal

justification, without an actual law being passed, without a decision

being made by this Congress or by this President. We will look at some

point in time in the future back and say, gee, how did all of this

happen? We sort of eliminated the borders. They do not really exist

anymore.

  Well, that may be true; and, as I say, it may be a good thing. I do

not think so, but let us debate. Let us at least have this issue come

to the floor. Let us not pretend that we are not just expanding

immigration for all of these altruistic reasons.

  There are political reasons, both in the United States and in Mexico,

for massive immigration. It is the hope of a number of people in

Mexico, of the government of Mexico that enough people will be here to

eventually influence the policy of the United States vis-a-vis Mexico.

It is the hope of people in the United States that we can somehow

attract these people and get them involved. It is the hope of the labor

unions that they can get all of the newly arrived immigrants, whether

they are legal or illegal, into labor unions, so all of a sudden we

have labor in support of massive immigration.

  And then there are certainly altruistic reasons why even the

President of the United States will support it.

  I believe that the President is a man who does speak from his heart.

I believe that. I go to bed every single night thanking God that George

Bush is the President of the United States. Let me get that clear and

out here on the table. And especially not the alternative that we had

in the last election. So that is not an issue. I am a 100 percent solid

supporter. No, I am not 100 percent, because this issue is one with

which I disagree with the President. But I believe it comes from his

heart when he is saying that he wants to expand immigration. I just

think he is wrong.

  I have a responsibility here to vote my conscience, and I certainly

will do that, and I will speak out against it. It is not being disloyal

to the President. It is simply an issue with which I disagree that he

brings up, his point of view.

  I believe that there are massive implications for immigration in the

United States, especially in the numbers that we are talking about

today. It is something we are going to have to deal with politically,

economically, culturally. There are a whole raft of fascinating topics

that can be brought up when we begin to debate on immigration. But as

long as we are going to have borders, however, as long as there are

still lines on a map that actually divide the United States from other

places in the world, from other countries, then, of course, they should

be meaningful.

  What is the purpose of a border, we should ask ourselves, and what is

our responsibility as a national government to defend them?

  It is again a unique position we find ourselves in at the Federal

level, establishing immigration policy. States cannot do it. States

have to deal with our decisions. With our decisions to abandon the

border comes a host of problems that confront every State in the

Nation, some more dramatically than others.

  California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida and other States that

face massive immigration, legal and illegal, are faced with building

schools as fast as they can, building highways, building hospitals,

their social service budgets are busting at the seams, all because they

are being inundated by people coming here, as they have come for many

years, to seek a better life.

  There is one unique kind of situation that is developing, however,

Mr. Speaker, in that we are witnessing an interesting phenomenon with

the recent arrivals into the United States. Undeniably, they are coming

here because they want a better life, because they see job

opportunities that are not available to them in their homeland. That is

exactly why most of our relatives, most of our grandparents or great

grandparents or whatever, this is why they came. That is not different.

  But, in the past, the vast majority of people coming into the United

States were seeking not only economic opportunity but they were seeking

a new life, a new experience, a new country that they could become a

part of, and they were anxious to cut the ties that bound them to the

country of their origin. They were willing to speak the language for a

while but very, very intent upon moving to the English language as

quickly as possible, because they recognized that it was the way they

could move up the economic ladder in this country. And it was also

because, as my grandparents used to say to each other, they would say

``speak America,'' not English, but ``speak America.'' They were the

immigrants of the late 1800s, early 1900s.

  They would get into arguments. I remember Sunday drives, and they

would get in an argument in the back seat and my grandmother would yell

at my grandfather, ``speak America,'' because it meant more to her. She

knew that the word was ``English,'' but what she was conveying was

something else. She was intent, as was my grandfather, on making

themselves and their children and their grandchildren American in every

way that they could.

  Mr. Speaker, I am a relatively new immigrant, in a way. That is to

say, I was born here, but my family is only third generation. I am only

third generation. My grandparents came here, as I said, in the late

1800s; and it is intriguing to me that in my life, the second

generation after that, there was absolutely no attachment to the

country of my grandparents' birth, other than I knew where it was. We

had the cuisine that represented Italian ancestry, and that was it,

really. That was it. There was certainly no political allegiance that

my or my grandparents or my parents held to the country from which they

came.

  Today, however, we are witnessing something quite different. We are

witnessing a flood of people into the United States who do not wish to

cut those ties. They wish to retain the political, cultural, and

linguistic ties of the country of their origin, and we encourage it in

the United States. Believe me, our own policies here, this radical,

what I would call radical, multiculturalism certainly encourages that

kind of separate status, the Balkanization of America.

  I can tell my colleagues that this is the case. We can actually show

empirical evidence. This is not just theory. It is a different sort of

situation today because I think that has always been brought up

whenever immigration issues are discussed that, well, it is different

today than it was before. Well, it is different today. Today, there are

6 million people here in the United States, at least; this is our best

estimate so far, at least 6 million people in

[[Page H775]]

the United States who claim dual citizenship. Now, this is an

interesting thing. It has never been this high.

  Well, for the longest time one could not do that in the United

States, and one is not really supposed to now. You cannot really become

a citizen. You are supposed to swear allegiance to the United States

and no allegiance to any foreign dictator or potentate, I think the

word is. But, in fact, people do retain their citizenship, as a result

of Mexico allowing their citizens to retain their citizenship just a

few years ago, and the numbers shot up to 6 million people.

                              {time}  1345

  Now, I am stating, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe that we would

have had this same phenomenon, not even the same percentage of

immigrants coming to the United States in the early 1900s, late 1800s.

I do not believe we would have had the same percentage of people

seeking to retain their citizenship of the country of origin. Because

they came for a different purpose.

  Now, I am not suggesting that this is a nefarious thing, that these

are not people coming here with the intent to do us harm for the most

part. That is certainly true. But it does, in fact, bode ill for the

United States. It really puts the emphasis on pluribus and not on unum.

Out of many, one. It puts the emphasis on many, and we really do not

get to the one. And that is happening to us, and most people I think

understand it. I know that most Americans understand it.

  Poll after poll after poll indicates a desire on the part of the

American people and, by the way, even recent immigrants to reduce the

number of people coming, to take a break, take a breather here, to not

let people come in illegally, and to not do something like give amnesty

for those people who are here illegally.

  I will get to that in just a moment because, I am afraid to say it,

but I am disappointed that I have to say it, but the fact is we will

probably be once again facing this proposal. I know the White House is

pushing it. I understand the leadership of the Congress, at least the

House anyway, has agreed to bring it up, maybe even as soon as next

week.

  But let me go back for a moment to the INS and talk about my concerns

there.

  I have already discussed the incredible degree of dysfunctionality,

if you will, in that particular agency, especially on the enforcement

side. They are incapable or nondesirous of actually doing anything for

enforcement. I think that is blatantly clear. I cannot imagine anybody

here, no matter how supportive they are of immigration, I cannot

imagine anybody actually defending the INS and their ability to

actually accomplish anything.

  And we must not think very much of it, Mr. Speaker. We must not think

very much of the agency itself, because we just appointed a guy to the

head of it, a good friend of the minority leader in the other body, a

good friend of a number of Members in the other body. This is a

gentleman that we appointed to head the INS. A nice man. I have met

him.

  Let me tell what you his qualifications are for the job. He was the

Sergeant at Arms of the other body. That is it. That is it. He had been

a staffer, I think, some many years back. He had been the Sergeant of

Arms for years. Of course, he knew many Members over there; and, lo and

behold, he is the new head of the INS. So we must not think very much

of the agency, I suppose. It is sort of a toss or a throwaway.

  We should think more about it because it is charged with an

incredibly important function. It just does not carry it out, and it

really cannot because not only, as I say, is the problem with the

enforcement side but now comes that GAO report that I mentioned earlier

on. February 15 the report was issued, titled ``GAO Report Finds

`Pervasive and Serious Problems With Immigration Benefit Fraud' ''.

  Now, remember, Mr. Speaker, this is the other side of what they do.

This is what they are supposed to do well. This is the social work

side, and this is what they tout. This is what they will state that

they are really all about.

  The lady that I debated who was the spokesperson for the INS in

Denver, this is what she said they do. They help people. They are there

to get people their benefits. That is what she said.

  Well, here is what the GAO report just found. ``Immigration benefit

fraud is a significant problem that threatens the integrity of the

legal immigration system. Aliens apply to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service for such benefits as naturalization, work

authorization and adjustment of status. Immigrants benefit fraud

involves attempts by aliens to obtain such benefits through illegal

means.''

  Oh, my goodness. Could that be happening? Ask the INS, how much fraud

is there, and they give you the low go. I am not sure. Probably a lot.

  ``The report also details the Immigration and Naturalization Service

failure to root out fraud in the immigration benefits application

process.'' In other words, they know there is fraud. They do not care.

  The Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman

from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), stated, and I quote, ``This report

raises a whole host of troubling homeland security threats posed by an

immigration benefits process wrought with fraud. In fact, the GAO study

finds the INS does not know the extent of the problem.''

  There we go again. Hey, who knows? Probably a lot.

  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) continues, ``Based

on this report I am not confident that the INS is not giving green

cards to al Qaeda operatives. We have a complete failure by the INS to

take the steps necessary to protect the people of the United States and

the immigration system itself from criminals manipulating the benefits

process. These findings support the urgent need for a comprehensive

legislative restructuring of the INS.''

  Is that not the truth? Underline comprehensive, by the way. Underline

comprehensive.

  We know what will happen in this body, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you are

aware as much as anyone else how difficult it is to actually reform an

agency of the Federal government and do so quite significantly,

comprehensively, very difficult. We will take a stab at it. We will

introduce something. It will get watered down in both Houses, and we

will end up thinking, was this really what we were trying to do? Is

this really reform? Maybe we have changed a few names.

  I am worried about it, but, nonetheless, we have got to try to do

something, again, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)

says, ``comprehensively.''

  Here are some of the findings from the GAO report. Now, please

understand that the GAO is not an agency with a given bias here. These

people, if anything, we would expect them to be more on the side of the

agency itself that they are investigating. But get this, Mr. Speaker. A

90 percent fraud rate. A 90 percent fraud rate was found in one review

of a targeted group of 5,000 petitions. A follow-up analysis of about

1,500 petitions found only one was not fraudulent.

  Please let me repeat that. I just do not know if you got that. A 90

percent fraud rate was found in the review of the targeted group of

5,000 petitions. Follow-up analysis of about 1,500 found only that one

was not fraudulent.

  This is what they are supposed to do well, remember. ``Benefit fraud

is a comparatively low priority within the INS,'' it went on to say.

``Without improvement in its benefit fraud investigations the INS's

inability to detect the number of ineligible aliens improperly applying

for benefits will be hampered.''

  Next, ``A senior INS official has testified to Congress that criminal

aliens and terrorists manipulate the benefit application process to

facilitate expansion of their illegal activities, such as crimes of

violence, narcotic trafficking, terrorism and entitlement fraud. GAO

was told by an INS official that fraud is probably involved in about 20

to 30 percent of all applications filed.'' They wish it was that low.

  ``The INS approach to addressing benefit fraud is fragmented and

unfocused. There is no assurance that INS reviews are adequate for

detecting non-compliance or abuse during application processing.''

  These are all findings of the GAO study. This is not my analysis.

This is the GAO policy of the part of the activity of the INS that they

are supposed to do well.

[[Page H776]]

  ``Some adjudication officers had to sneak over to the operations unit

to discuss fraud-related issues because adjudication officers are

discouraged from taking the time to discuss questionable cases with

investigators.

  ``INS officials said that fraud is rampant across the country and out

of control.'' That is the part they are probably sure of. I know there

is a lot of it, they would say. ``INS officials indicate that the

immigration benefit fraud problem will increase as smugglers and other

criminal enterprises use fraud as other means of bringing illegal

aliens, including criminal aliens, into the country.''

  By the way, please understand we are not talking about Mexico here

for these types of problems. We are talking about Russia. We are

talking about China. We are talking about countries all over the world

who are perpetrating this fraud in order to advance certain illegal

activities.

  ``The INS fails to balance its responsibility to provide immigration

benefits with its duty to detect fraud in the immigration process. The

GAO concluded that emphasis has been placed on timely processing of

applications, allowing quality to suffer. This has contributed to the

increase in benefit fraud.''

  Now, this is the GAO report; and it probably, as most reports of this

nature, only skims the surface. This is probably just the tip of the

iceberg. But even if it is the whole thing, for heaven's sake, why

would we not say we have a massive problem here?

  Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, with this picture I have tried to

paint of an agency, dysfunctional in nature, incompetent, inefficiently

run, headed by a gentleman, again, nice enough fellow but who was the

Sergeant of Arms at the Senate, that is it. That is it. This is the

agency to which we entrust the sanctity of our border, maintaining

that, creating it, because that certainly is not a place with which you

can apply that term today.

  This is to whom we turn in a time when terrorism poses enormous

threats to our very survival. This is the agency that we turn to.

  Now, when we were on the border, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to you

not too long ago, several Members and I went down on a congressional

delegation. We talked to literally scores of people who were working on

the border at the time. We talked to our immigration officials. We

talked to people in the embassy, people who were important for visa

processing. We talked to people right on the border, border control

agents; and to a person they recognized that they were facing

unbelievable challenges and that they were not really doing all that

well.

  But what they said to us is, please do not do anything to make the

job worse. And we said, well, like what? They said, like this amnesty

issue. Do not do that again. Every time you start talking about amnesty

up there, meaning here, the flood turns into a tidal wave. Because, of

course, what do we think would happen?

  Is it illogical to assume that if we allow everybody who is here

legally or even a large portion of them if they are here illegally, if

we allow them amnesty, would that not simply encourage a lot of people

to come across the border in hopes of obtaining exactly the same thing

in a short time and not going through the regular process, not doing

what millions of other people have to do, fill out the paperwork, go

through the process of immigration, wait in line and wait your turn?

Why would not they just simply come across?

  Well, they do. Of course they do. And they said, please do not do

that again.

  I got back here that night to find that, in fact, we were preparing

an amendment to do exactly that. The President had asked for it. The

leadership was preparing it. We had quite a little tussle in our

conference about that, and a decision was made shortly thereafter to

not pursue it. A wise decision, I think.

  But because the President is going to Mexico in just a few weeks,

just a couple of weeks, there is strong desire on the part of the

administration to allow him to take with him this issue, an amnesty. So

I am told in a relatively short time, maybe next week, the House will

be once again debating whether or not we are going to give amnesty to

people here illegally.

  Now, again, it is almost incredible that we have to say that this is

a bad idea. Again, I support the President in almost every single one

of his efforts, domestic and foreign policy combined. But on this he is

wrong.

  We should not reward people for breaking our laws. And whether we

call it a fine or just a revenue enhancement thing, having them pay a

little extra money to get in here, I am told that maybe the thinking is

having them pay $1,000 and that would be the fine for having broken our

laws. What does that mean to the whole world? Come up with a grand and

come on in.

                              {time}  1400

  That is all it means. It means do not go through the system. Do not

be a fool. Why would you actually go through the system? Why would you

wait in line? Why would you do it legally? There is an easier way. Come

across the border, get into the United States through a visa, by any

way you can, by ship, by plane, just get here, stay here, overstay your

visa, meld into the populace at large and forget about it. Because

pretty soon somebody will say ``Olly, Olly, Ox In Free,'' and we will

let them in.

  This is a bad idea. It may be done for political reasons; it may be

done out of all truism. I do not know. It does not matter. It is a bad

idea. There is a security issue we must deal with.

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to congratulate the

gentleman on his brilliant articulation of the topic.

  Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the

gentleman that we will see how brilliant it is once we get a vote on

this issue and whether or not we are able to convince anybody, but I

thank the gentleman for those kind words.

  Mr. Speaker, I know there is an agreement of political muscle being

applied on this. The Speaker of the House is going to bring it, the

President of the United States wants it, but most people in this

country do not. Even yesterday, Mr. Speaker, something very interesting

happened. I was told about this, I did not witness it myself; but I

understand the President was speaking to the National Hispanic Chamber

of Commerce and he was getting applause in all the right places for

everything he said and everything he was doing in talking about the

troops, talking about our war against terrorism; and then he said, and

by the way, I am going to push for 245(i) extension. There was not, as

I am told, there was not a single person in the audience who put their

hands together in applause.

  This is not something that most people who came here legally want.

They understand the problem. They do not want to encourage illegal

immigration. They came here legally. They know that that is the right

way to do it. We should not be pandering to any other groups or

organizations, to the immigration lobbyists. We should not be doing

that. We are not going to benefit from it politically. Nothing we will

ever do will ever satisfy groups like La Raza and others, these

immigration advocacy groups. Nothing will ever satisfy them until the

complete elimination of the borders actually occurs.

  It is not a good idea. Every time I go to Mexico and I talk to them

in Mexico, I ask them, what is it they are looking for? They always

talk to me about the circularity. They want people coming to the United

States, said the foreign minister, we want people coming to the United

States, we want them working, we want them sending money back to

Mexico, and then, as President Vincente Fox said, I want them coming

home to retire in Mexico. Well, I would say that I am all for the

circularity issue, but I would narrow the time frame quite dramatically

to something we call a ``guest worker program.''

  People need a job, and people need workers. Great. We establish a

guest worker program, one that really and truly is viable. People come

in, they take the jobs that are available for them, and we protect

their rights as workers. We do not let them be abused by employers who

may want to take advantage of them because they would be here illegally

under other circumstances. So we can protect their

[[Page H777]]

rights and also protect our own rights as a Nation by determining who

comes and how many and how long they stay by establishing a good guest

worker program.

  But they do not want that. They simply want us to abandon the border.

They do not want people just coming to the United States working and

then going home; they want them just coming to the United States. And,

as I say, there are political reasons for that in Mexico; there are

political reasons for that here in the United States. But we should at

least speak out on it. We should at least speak out against it.

  For one thing, Mr. Speaker, we would be giving the task of

determining who is eligible for this amnesty to the Department of

Justice and, more specifically, to the, guess what, to the INS. Now,

Mr. Speaker, what more do I have to say about this organization that

could possibly convince the people here that this is not the right

organization to give such a responsibility to?

  I cannot imagine that anybody thinks that fraud would not be rampant

in all of the applications, or at least a huge majority that would be

approved by this organization. Because, after a while, they just get

the stamp out. As the clock winds out, they just get the stamp out. I

would go back to this last comment that was made about the INS, about

their only real intent is to move the paperwork quickly and

efficiently. That is all they care about.

  So they get the stamp out, they will let people in, and they will not

have gone through a background check that is the same kind of

background check they would have in the country from which they

originated. And, therefore, we become even more vulnerable to the kind

of terrorist activity that we have seen and that we anticipate.

  Mr. Speaker, there are many, many battles that we will fight with

regard to this immigration issue, some very, very broad in nature, some

very specific. This is a specific one. Extension of 245(i). People

listening to this might hear that, but that is simply a euphemism for

the word ``amnesty.'' This is not a good thing for us to do. It is not

good public policy. Most people in the United States agree with that

statement.

  Why are we doing it? What is the reason we are in such a rush to get

this in front of us? Why is there so much pressure being placed on us

to do something most people in the country are absolutely opposed to,

and in their heart of hearts, I think most Members are absolutely

opposed to it? How they will vote, I am not sure, because there is, of

course, this element of having the administration backing it. But I

assure my colleagues that whether this administration or any other

supports this kind of proposal, it is the wrong thing to do. And I for

one will speak out against it as loudly as I can, as vociferously as I

can, and as often as I can.

  I recognize fully well that there are only two things I have in this

body, and that is my voice and my vote; and I will use both of them as

effectively as I possibly can to stop what I believe to be a tragedy in

the making, and that is the disuniting of America, as Arthur

Schlesinger, Jr., puts it in his brilliant essay, ``The Disuniting of

America.''

  That is really what the issue is about here, whether this Nation will

actually sustain itself. And, therefore, it is my responsibility to

speak out against it regardless of who is pushing it, the President or

Speaker.

                          ____________________

If the plan is to let these people in to make payments into the SS system,it is a horrible failure.

Definitely a horrible failure right now. And maybe always. But can't you just see some government thinktank sitting around saying, "Well, the whites are dying off. With them vanishes the solid tax base upon we depend for our absurd and wasteful programs. Therefore, we should allow unfettered immigration of unskilled, uneducated, non-English speaking refugees from Mexico. By the millions. No, TENS of millions." Then they slap high fives and go have dry martinis on our dime.