Securing America's Borders Act

SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this debate we are having on this important legislation is critical to our Nation. It is long overdue. I am glad we are finally talking about border security and immigration reform in a comprehensive way.

I know, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, our chairman, Senator Specter, and the committee have worked very hard on this legislation. There is a lot of the legislation that I think is very good. For example, the border security component of the bill is very strong. I am proud to say that a good chunk of that came from legislation Senator Kyl and I have drafted and has been out there for a year or more.

But I believe with all my heart that what has brought us to this day and this debate on the Senate floor is because Americans are terribly concerned that in a post-9/11 world, we simply do not have control of our borders. And they believe--and I believe they are correct--it exposes us to a danger and that the Federal Government has a primary responsibility of making sure our security interests are protected. As I said earlier today, border security is national security.

Now, how did we get here? I believe this is important because I do not want people to get the wrong impression. We are a proud nation of immigrants. All of us--no matter who we are, how we pronounce our last name, where we were born--came from somewhere else. America has been the net beneficiary of the fact that we have been that beacon of freedom and opportunity which has attracted people from all around the world. What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world is that once you come to America, you become an American, not because of the color of your skin or your religious affiliation or beliefs or the country where you were born, you become an American because you believe in the American ideal and you believe that everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to the opportunity to achieve their own American dream. That is really one of the greatest legacies this Nation will ever have.

But we are also a nation of laws. To me, the toughest part about this legislation has been, how do we reconcile that vision--our American values of a nation of immigrants--with this important notion and ideal of a nation that also believes in the rule of law?

One of the reasons I so strongly support this amendment is that while we are a welcoming nation and we open our arms to people who want to come to America to achieve a better life--hopefully through legal avenues of immigration--we know there are some who have not come here through those legal avenues. What we are attempting to achieve in this legislation is to create legal avenues of immigration into this country.

Some people may decide they want to come here to become legal permanent residents and citizens and become Americans. Others might figure they want to come to this country on a temporary basis to work and to earn a living so they can support their family, so that they ultimately can return to their country of origin with the savings and skills they have acquired while working in the United States. But in a very real sense, these temporary workers do not intend to become Americans. They do not intend to sever their relationship with their country and their family and their culture.

The fact is, we need those legal workers here in the United States. We ought to create--and I do support creating--a legal avenue for them to come and work for a time and then to return to their country of origin. The fact is, that serves America's national interests. It also serves the national interest of those countries from whence they come. Indeed, one of the components of that, which we will talk about more as this debate continues, has to do with establishing a legal opportunity for people to work for a while in the United States and then to go home with savings and skills they have acquired here.

The reason that is important--and this should not be overlooked--is that no country could sustain the permanent exodus of its hard-working young people, which is what is happening to many countries south of our border today. Those economies are handicapped dramatically because of the massive immigration and permanent exodus of their young people to this country.

What we ought to be about, not only in our national interest but as a means of reaching out to those countries and enabling them to create economic opportunity there at home, is a way for them to build their own economy to create opportunity in their homeland.

While there are certainly people who will want to immigrate to the United States permanently, there are many others who, if given the opportunity to work for a while in the United States, would be more than happy to maintain their ties to their country and their culture and their family and return home and possibly to come back after a period of time.

But I say all that by way of predicate to say that we have a right as a sovereign nation not only to protect our own borders, we have an obligation to make sure the American people are not exposed to extraordinary danger that might occur if common criminals are given a free ride, inadvertently, in this bill.

Now, I do not imagine for a minute the authors of this bill intended that felons, persons who were guilty of three successive misdemeanors, people who are under final orders of deportation or criminal absconders--I do not actually believe the authors of this bill intended to grant an amnesty or to forgive those crimes or to welcome those people into the United States because I believe either these individuals, by virtue of the crimes they have committed, should not be accepted into the United States--and we certainly have a right to control who comes and who does not come, and I think these people have disqualified themselves by virtue of their criminal activity--but there is also another segment of people, some 400,000 individuals, who have had their day in court, who have been ordered deported because they have had their due process, and they simply have failed to reappear so the law may be carried out. So they are what is called an absconder. And 80,000 of those some 400,000 people are criminal absconders, people guilty of felonies in the United States, people who have, since they have come here, disqualified themselves by virtue of their failure to comply with our law and no longer deserve to be able to live in the United States.

So I believe it is very important to make those distinctions. We ought to be able to distinguish between those individuals who have come to the United States because they do not have any opportunity, they do not have any hope of providing for their families where they live--we are willing to find a way to provide them a way to work in a legal system or, if they are willing to comply with the requirements of the law, to exit the country and return in a legal way and work and live in the United States, should they choose to do so and should they be qualified--but surely we can all agree there are certain persons who, by virtue of their misconduct, as evidenced by their unwillingness to comply with our laws and exposing the American people to danger in the process, that we ought to be able to protect the public safety and distinguish between people who have violated the immigration laws and those who have committed far more serious crimes or abused their rights and had the opportunity to be heard and are under final orders of deportation.

I will not go into any more detail other than just to say a few things about this amendment that I gladly join.

One of the reasons I am concerned that under the Judiciary Committee bill some people might perceive that what is granted is an amnesty is because while there may be some definitional disputes about what constitutes an amnesty, what I am confident of is that people will agree that in 1986, we had an amnesty. And I am confident the vast majority of people will agree with me, not only was it an amnesty, they will agree with me, I believe, that it was a complete and total failure. The tradeoff for the amnesty of 3 million people was to get worksite verification and employer sanctions, yet the Federal Government did not step up and provide that capacity.

So what happened is that 3 million now becomes 12 million today. One reason I am so determined not to repeat the mistakes of 1986 is because I believe it would be a magnet for further illegal immigration.

This amendment is sensible. It provides that criminals can't get a green card, and those who have had their day in court and proven themselves disqualified from further opportunity to immigrate to the United States legally and become American citizens or permanent residents should not be included in what some might regard as a repetition of the amnesty that was issued in 1986.

It is with pleasure that I join Senator Kyl in cosponsoring this amendment. We urge our colleagues to support us.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a couple questions.

Mr. CORNYN. Certainly.

Mr. KYL. First, does our amendment criminalize anything that isn't already criminalized?

Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely not. That has been one of the misconceptions or perhaps straw men that have been hoisted out there because some people have suggested we are trying to criminalize people who merely want to come to this country for economic opportunity to provide for their families. This does nothing of the kind. These are people who have already been convicted of felonies in the United States or three misdemeanors or have committed serious crimes out of the United States, or that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security believes are a safety risk to the American people.

Mr. KYL. So nothing in our amendment makes any new kind of conduct a crime. It simply deals with people who have already committed crimes?

Mr. CORNYN. That is entirely correct.

http://thomas.loc.gov/