Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005
BORDER PROTECTION, ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - December 16, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I would just note, according to the State Department Visa Bulletin for next month, really this is primarily numerically the greatest number of individuals who benefit are from the continent of Africa. And because of immigration patterns, this is an important element of an opportunity for the American dream for would-be Americans who are coming from the continent of Africa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Currently, illegal presence in the United States is not a crime; it is a civil violation.
People who cross the border without inspection commit a crime for improper entry but not an ongoing violation. The government can prosecute you for crossing but not for existing after having done so.
This section, section 203, makes virtually any violation of the immigration laws an ongoing criminal act. In one stroke, it would subject the entire undocumented population, estimate by some to be 11 million people, to criminal liability.
Now the amendment before us changes the degree of punishment, but it does not alter the underlying issue of criminalizing being alive in the country without documents. I would like to note that, in addition to adults, this would criminalize children who had no decision about coming to the United States.
I understand, although, I was not present in the course of the discussion in the Rules Committee, but that one of the Members of the committee raised the issue of an individual, a young student who was 17, who actually thought that he was an American citizen and found out, much to his surprise, that he was not.
That young man, under the underlying bill, would be a felon. Under the amendment, he would be a misdemeanant, but in fact, he is not a criminal at all. He is a kid who was brought here by his parents and who is in a bind right now. Making him a criminal is not going to make us any safer. It is not a reasonable thing to do. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
In taking a look at section 203, the application of criminality is actually quite broad. If you are here in the United States holding a student visa, there are requirements, for example, that you take a certain number of units in order to maintain that status. If, for example, you fall below that, and I will say that there are many students who, for one reason or another, one quarter might fall below where they may need to be, you would be in violation of your student visa status. Under the amendment before us, you would not just be disappointing your parents who paid full tuition, you would be committing a misdemeanor.
If you are a businessman here and your return flight home is cancelled, causing your visitors visa, your B2 visa, to be expired, not only would you be in technical violation if you were 2 days late to the flight home, but you would also be committing a misdemeanor.
I do not think that is a reasonable approach. I also do not think that it has anything to do with keeping our country safer. You know, this debate started yesterday on the floor of the House. But it has been ongoing in the media for quite some time. The John and Ken show in California every day is taking about illegal immigration.
And we saw many Members, our friends on the other side of the aisle, touting that they were going to have this tough bill. And then, of course, today, we see that the Republicans are trying to back off on that a little bit.
So it is easy to say one thing to the red meat talk shows, but here, of course, we need to make some adjustments.
We think the adjustment is misguided, and it is not one that I can support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for the purpose of entering into a brief colloquy.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I want to understand the state of play. If this amendment goes to a vote, a recorded vote, then am I to understand that the chairman and the Republican leadership has offered a tough bill and now they are asking their colleagues on the majority side to soften the criminal penalties for illegal immigration?
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We will soon discover.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. HAYES). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be postponed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov