Liberal Democrats have upped the ante on President Bush's proposal to amnesty illegal aliens.
In January, Bush proposed giving illegal aliens renewable 3-year guest worker cards. But, in theory at least, these cards would not entitle an alien to preferred treatment in winning permanent residency.
Now, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Rep. Bob Menendez (D.-N.J.) have proposed granting permanent residency to virtually all illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. at least five years and who can pass a background check. They also would allow illegal aliens who have been here less than five years to apply for temporary legal status. After these "temporary" aliens have accumulated five years in the country, they could also apply for permanent residency. In other words: Kennedy-Guiterrez is an unabashed amnesty.
HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked lawmakers if they would support the proposal.
Senator Kennedy and Congressman Gutierrez proposed yesterday an immigration plan basically giving amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens-do you support that?
REP. MIKE CAPUANO (D.-MASS.): I'm looking at that now. I won't support it if I haven't read it. Generally, I like the concept, but until I read it I won't know. . . .
Just to pose a sort of theoretical question, if the 19 hijackers on September 11 had clean records back home, they might have been able to pass the kind of tests they're proposing for people getting citizenship. Would that make you more likely to-
CAPUANO: It's one of the reasons I have to read the bill. There's all kinds of hypothetical situations but I also deal with real people too. When I read the bill and compare it against the experience we've had at home, that's when I'll make a judgment.
The immigration proposal made yesterday basically says if you've been here for five years, and pass a background check, we'll give you amnesty and make you a citizen. I was wondering if you generally supported that proposal?
REP. JOHN CONYERS (D.-MICH.): Yes.
Some people say that the September 19 hijackers probably would have been able . . . to pass a security screening. They had clean records generally. Would that concern you?
CONYERS: Yeah.
You'd still want the amnesty?
CONYERS: No, that's an issue we'd have to examine carefully. I wouldn't slough it off.
Your dad dropped this immigration bill yesterday for people who have been here for five years, illegal immigrants, they're able to basically get an amnesty, get a path to citizenship. I want to know if you plan to support that.
REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D.-R.I.): I honestly need to read more about the bill but I am inclined to support it.
People have said that out of the 19 September 11 hijackers, probably all or at least most of them would have passed a security screening and that to suddenly naturalize a lot of people who have been here for five years might be dangerous.
KENNEDY: Well, we need to have a much better identification system in this country and INS needs to be given the resources to do that and they need to be given the resources to make sure that those visas that are granted are actually followed up and enforced like student visas and temporary visas. . . . And you know, we have to figure out a way to improve the number of people we give refugee status towards because in this great country of ours we ought be doing a lot better in terms of the refugees that we give status for, and I think there are certain populations that we need to be expediting-we ought to be giving permanent status to . . . .
Senator Kennedy proposed yesterday an immigration plan giving amnesty to illegal aliens who pass a background check and have been here for five years-do you agree with that?
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R.-MISS.): I don't agree with that. The President outlined this earlier in the year I think it's an area that we need to work. I think that the-if you read all that he proposed it had a lot of good things in it but I think he got his cart before the horse. . . . I am sure I disagree with Kennedy. . . . But also I don't agree with how the way the President has his set up either.
Should we deport illegal aliens?
LOTT: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, there is a key word here-it's called illegal. You get here illegally, and we identify you, we find you, you should be removed, absolutely and that's part of the problem here. We try to give them all the benefits of being Americans without any of the responsibilities and I don't think that makes sense.
I want to ask you about the immigration proposal Senator Kennedy made yesterday, the idea is if you've been here for five years, we give you amnesty and the path to citizenship and I wanted to know if you generally support that.
REP. STEVE LYNCH (D.-MASS.): I know that we have these added security concerns and I think with the consolidation of a lot of these agencies that we just need to use a cautious approach, that's all. So, I haven't read the bill, so I shouldn't comment on something I haven't read.
Some of the border agents have said that after President Bush made his proposal, they've seen a large increase in the number of illegal aliens. Is that-
LYNCH: Well, you know, that's obviously a problem. If you're going to do something for those who have violated the law or just not submitted to the whole process, what does it say for the people who have been waiting patiently and properly and are trying to do the right thing? I think it's a sort of pushing them to the back of the line because they have followed the law and tried to do the right thing. So, you don't want to discourage a proper system of immigration, one that's lawful and fair. That's the problem with some of these stop-gap measures, and I understand things have gotten worse since September 11, the process has become bogged down, but I'm not sure that just an amnesty program or something along those lines, is the solution.
Senator Kennedy yesterday proposed an immigration plan basically giving amnesty for anyone who has been here for five years and passes a background check. Do you support that kind of amnesty?
SEN. BEN NELSON (D.-NEB.): You know, I am very concerned about amnesty. I am concerned that when you create an amnesty that you send a message to those who have done things according to the law, that you don't necessarily want to send and that is you don't really have to abide by law, you can just wait long enough if you violate it, then somebody will forgive you. So, I am very, very cautious about it. I'm anxious to hear the arguments but I am very cautious about doing it that way.
A lot of people say the INS is under-funded, would you like to see the INS step up deportations, at least try to discourage immigration by sending a message that says, hey look, we are going to find you?
NELSON: The quick answer to that is, yes. The more thoughtful answer is the ones who are picked on are children and families and families may be here illegally, but oddly enough the children aren't illegally and they'll get sent back. It will be somebody's grandmother that's been here. I just don't want us to engage in thoughtless deportment. By increasing enforcement that gets the job done I would be in favor of it. But I believe we would get thoughtless enforcement, so I am a little nervous about that. . . .
Doesn't that put you in a sort of impossible spot, though? I mean, everybody is somebody's grandmother or child or something.
NELSON: I think that immigration enforcement is a nearly impossible task, so because of that, I don't think it means we just throw in the towel, I think we ought to use rational means to enforce and enforce it rationally which I think we are capable of doing.
