ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[Congressional Record: June 14, 2001 (House)]
[Page H3196-H3199]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr14jn01-104]                         

   THREAT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND MASSIVE UNCONTROLLED 
                              IMMIGRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). 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, today being Flag Day, millions of 
Americans around the country are honoring the Nation through honoring 
the flag. Naturally, our thoughts turn to a number of subjects on a day 
like today.
  I just returned from a particularly stirring presentation that was 
held over in the Cannon Caucus Building for veterans, at which time I 
was able to give a little bit of a presentation. It was a very powerful 
event, beautiful music, and a lot of great speeches about the country, 
about the Nation, about where we are as a Nation and about where we 
hope to go.
  Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a couple of things 
that I believe to be the most significant threats this Nation faces; 
one is an external threat, and that threat is the People's Republic of 
China.
  I characterize that nation as a threat, because of the actions taken 
by the Chinese, not just in the recent past, by the forcing down of one 
of our planes, but I suggest that China is a threat to the United 
States and can be identified as such as a result of analyzing China's 
history and its most recent actions together.
  China is a nation with a very long history of aggressive behavior; 
that behavior is often activated by grievances, both actual grievances 
and perceived and contrived.
  It is motivated by a sort of raging nationalism that finds expression 
in expanding its borders in xenophobia. I believe that the best way to 
successfully deal with China is to understand these realities and to 
fashion a foreign policy accordingly.
  Later on, I will discuss what I believe to be the other most 
significant threat to the United States and that is internally. It is 
not a foreign threat, it is an internal threat, and that is massive 
uncontrolled immigration into this country, both legal and illegal.
  I recognize that both of these subjects are quite controversial. Both 
of these subjects always engender a lot of emotion and a lot of 
discussion. The latter, the issue of immigration, does not get much 
attention on this floor, because there is a fear, a natural fear, on 
the part of a lot of people, a lot of my colleagues to address this, 
for fear that they will be characterized or mischaracterized, as the 
case may be, as a result of their opposition or concern about massive 
immigration into this Nation.
  It is, nonetheless, the second topic I will deal with. First, I want 
to stay with the topic of the People's Republic of China.
  Another important understanding for Americans with regard to China, 
something we must come to grips with is the fact that China believes 
itself to be our number one enemy. They look at us as their enemy. 
There is absolutely nothing we can do by way of appeasement that will 
ever change this reality.
  Here in the United States, as in most democracies, there is a basic 
unwillingness to confront the harsh realities of nature. We want to 
attribute always the hostile actions of others to benign intent.
  History, of course, has proven that this particular course of action 
is always dangerous and sometimes disastrous. From a historical 
perspective, China provides an unparalleled view of a nation in the 
constant grip of absolutism. Indeed, this tradition goes back to the 
very founding of the Chinese state by the Chang dynasty in 1766 B.C. 
The governmental structure at that time was sophisticated, and an 
autocrat ruled it. When addressing his subjects, he referred to himself 
as I, the single one man.
  For literally thousands of years, the Chinese people have been 
treated as disposable resources of the state. The recent discovery of 
the famed Terra Cotta Warriors in China's ancient Capitol of Xian have 
survived far longer than the bones of the thousands of construction 
workers who were buried alive to hide the location of the tomb from 
grave robbers.
  I find this to be a more interesting aspect of Chinese and a more 
revealing aspect of Chinese culture than the craftsmanship of the 
artists involved.
  China's long history is an unbroken international internalization of 
the concept of externally expanding power as a guiding principle of 
foreign policy.
  A China scholar by the name of Steven Moser states that this desire 
for hegemony is still deeply embedded in China's national dream work, 
intrinsic to its national identity and implicated in what it believes 
to be its natural destiny.
  Mr. Moser divides China's quest for hegemony in three parts, basic 
hegemony, he says, the recovery of Taiwan, and the assertion of 
undisputed control over the South China Sea. Regional hegemony is the 
extension of the Chinese empire to maximum extent of its old, what they 
call their old Celestial Empire.
  Finally, global hegemony, this is a worldwide contest with the United 
States to replace the current Pax Americana with a Pax Sinoca.
  Certainly many observers disagree with Mr. Moser's characterization 
of modern day China. They would argue that time have changed and that 
new realities have forced a cultural and political metamorphosis in the 
PRC.
  They go on to contend that the United States should fashion a foreign 
policy to accommodate this change. This, of course, is one of the 
arguments that was made during the recent debate here in this Congress 
over PNTR, or permanent normal trade relationships, with China.
  The other very powerful argument that was made for PNTR, and about 
which I will say more later, when something like this, we do not really 
care about America's national security interests. There is money to be 
made by buying cheap in China and selling dear in the rest of the 
world. Well, let us test the theory of the modern day Chamberlains that 
rely on the accommodating rather than confronting China.
  China, of course, is already acquired, through more peaceful 
mechanisms, Hong Kong and Macau; but they are now preparing for Taiwan 
to follow suit, peacefully or otherwise. China is aggressively 
assembling the military capabilities to protect its war power beyond 
its present internationally recognized borders.
  Six days ago, China masked amphibious vehicles and landing craft on 
an island near Taiwan as part of a large-scale military exercise. These 
exercises are expected to be one of the largest shore-based war games 
held by the Chinese military in recent history.
  China's capability to deliver the nuclear weapons to targets which 
include Los Angeles and many other cities in the United States has been 
perfected by the application of advanced technology that has been both 
purchased and stolen from the United States.
  China has embarked upon the construction of three missile bases along 
the coast to threaten Taiwan. My colleagues may recall that they fired 
several missiles toward Taiwan just not too long ago.
  Mr. Speaker, a little over 1 year ago, China exploded a neutron bomb; 
that event went relatively unpublicized in the Western press. Included 
in the plans for this basic hegemony of the region is the occupation of 
the Spratly and Paracel Island group. No fewer

[[Page H3197]]

than 11 naval bases have been constructed in this area in the very 
recent past.
  By the way, these are very important sites strategically, as they 
control the sea lanes connecting the Strait of Malaca and the Taiwan 
Strait. From there you can easily strengthen the Philippines and Brunei 
and Thailand.
  In recent history, China began its quest to regain the Celestial 
Empire, that was an area stretching from the Russian Far East to Lake 
Bakal and most of southern Asia, by sending troops into Tibet, Inner 
Mongolia and Manchuria.
  They are using nonmilitary assets to project Chinese influence around 
the region by exporting human beings. There are now over 60 million 
Chinese expatriates in surrounding countries operating businesses that 
generate almost $700 billion a year, which is, by the way, almost equal 
to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the Communist Chinese.
  Chinese now outnumbers Russians. Chinese now outnumber Russians in 
Siberia. In 1995, the Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev warned the 
Chinese were in the process of making a peaceful conquest of the 
Russian Far East. Russians are fearful of this mass immigration, but 
the Chinese love it.
  The outflow relieves unemployment. It facilitates trade and, more 
importantly, it strengthens the historical claims to the land. By the 
way, all this sounds unfortunately very familiar to some of the things 
that are happening in our own country and, again, about which I will 
speak more in the future.
  There is a significant increase in activity of a variety of sorts in 
Tajikistan and Kazakhstan and Mongolia and Korea.
  Eventually, the Chinese believe they will be in direct confrontation 
with the United States. Their military and political leaders have 
stated this on several occasions. We, however, would rather whistle 
past the graveyard, which by the way may well be the one that we would 
all rest in if China had their way.
  Now many people disagree. Again they will say that the era of 
monolithic communism is dead and the era of democratic capitalism has 
replaced it. Well, philosophical communism is indeed a rotting corpse, 
but totalitarian communism is alive and well in the PRC. In fact, 
throughout the world, political oppression can and does coexist quite 
comfortably with various iterations of capitalism.

                              {time}  1545

  One can make the case that political freedom cannot long exist 
without economic freedom; but the opposite case that economic freedom 
leads inevitably to political liberty is much weaker.
  In fact, let us look closely at China over the last 20 years of 
economic reforms. Today, remember, after the last 20 years of economic 
reforms where democratic capitalism was supposed to have been making 
inroads in China, after 20 years of this, every major dissident in 
China has been jailed or they have been exiled.
  According to the State Department nation report this year, thousands 
of unregistered religious institutions have been either closed or 
destroyed. Hundreds of Falun Gong have been imprisoned. Thousands more 
have been sentenced to, quote, reeducation camps or locked up in mental 
hospitals.
  On April 23, the Chinese arrested a 79-year-old bishop and seven 
other Catholic clergymen in anticipation of problems arising out of the 
celebration of Easter. Two days ago, they arrested 35 Christians for 
worshipping outside their official church. They were sentenced to labor 
camps.
  Speaking of labor camps, the number in China now stands around 1,100. 
These are places of human misery on a scale equivalent to anything seen 
in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet gulag. In fact, they have become an 
integral part of the Chinese economy through the sale of products made 
by slave labor. By the way, much of this can be found in almost every 
store in America. As we all know, China is the source the Pentagon went 
to to purchase the berets, the black berets that they were going to 
provide our military with.
  A particularly lucrative industry has grown up around the harvesting 
and sale of human organs in China. Prisoners in these labor camps are 
categorized according to blood types and other pertinent information. 
When orders come in from around the world for certain body parts, the 
appropriate prisoners are slaughtered. Their organs are packed and sent 
off to the highest bidder.
  In 1996, the Chinese Government admitted that 20,000 kidneys had been 
harvested from prisoners. By the way, in most cases, they took them two 
at a time.
  All this is going on while American culture supposedly makes inroads 
into every part of the world and while the Internet provides a window 
to the world to all who can afford the hardware or get access to it. 
All this is going on subsequent to all the political strategies 
designed to bring China into the community of nations. It goes on after 
we pass PNTR. It will continue to go on until the United States and the 
rest of the world draw the proverbial line in the sand and make it 
clear that Chinese plans for basic regional and global hegemony are 
unattainable.
  China may eventually be forced to accept the world as it is and 
accept that role as a peaceful participant in the March toward 
democratic capitalism. But it will not happen as a result of a policy 
of appeasement.
  I worry, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that this Congress will be asked 
once again to approve normal trade relations with China because, 
although we passed over, certainly, my objection and that of many of 
our colleagues here, we did pass last year PNTR.
  China has not, in fact, joined the WTO, the World Trade Organization. 
As a result of the fact that they have not yet joined the WTO, they 
have not achieved PNTR with the United States. So we will every year 
now until they are in the WTO, the President will still have to request 
normal trade relations with China. I fear that it will be extended to 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I will never forget what we went through here on this 
floor and in this body on the debate over that particular issue. I 
personally have never ever been lobbied more heavily, more pressure 
applied to try to get me to vote for normal trade relations with China.
  Nothing that I ever dealt with here on the floor, not issues of 
abortion, not issues of gun-related laws, nothing matched the pressure 
that we faced from the corporate lobby in this Nation, the corporate 
lobby that puts profits above patriotism. That is the only way we can 
describe what they were doing here.
  I will not call them American corporations because, Mr. Speaker, they 
had absolutely no allegiance to this country. They were much more 
concerned with that market they believed that existed in China. Really, 
what they wanted to do was import very cheap Chinese products and sell 
them in lucrative markets.
  The idea that we were going to have a two-way trade was what they 
would constantly refer to. But, Mr. Speaker, that will never happen. 
First of all, there is no market there. Although there are certainly a 
billion and a half people, they cannot buy our products. They do not 
have the money, number one.
  Number two, the Chinese Government will never allow massive trade 
with the United States. They only allow it going the other way, to the 
extent that we now sell to them only 2 percent of our exports, but we 
buy 40 percent of theirs.

  Our trade imbalance with them last year was $86 billion. This is what 
we called trade. It is not trade. It is an imbalance that is 
detrimental to the United States and to American workers. Not only 
that, it is detrimental to the security of the United States, because 
when we make China stronger economically, we in fact provide them with 
the means to build the armaments to threaten us eventually. Taiwan 
today, the United States tomorrow. I believe this to be true, Mr. 
Speaker. I believe that China is our most significant and most serious 
threat externally.
  Now, let me get to the internal threat to the Nation. Since 1970, 
more than 40 million foreign citizens and their descendents have been 
added to the local communities of the United States. Last month, the 
New York Times reported the Nation's population grew by more in the 
1990s than in any other decade in United States history.

[[Page H3198]]

 For the first time since the 19th century, the population of all 50 
States increased, with 80 percent of the American counties experiencing 
growth.
  Demographic change on such a massive scale inevitably has created 
winners and losers here in America. It is time, in fact way past time, 
that we asked ourselves what is the level of immigration that is best 
for America; in fact, what is even the level of immigration that can 
help the rest of the world.
  It is difficult to discuss this, because everyone here, certainly on 
this floor, all of us, all of my colleagues, everybody that we know as 
friends and relatives who are immigrants to this Nation and relatively 
recent. My family came here in the late 1800s.
  So it is not immigrants in and of themselves with which we find 
fault. Certainly I do not. I understand entirely the desire for all of 
these people to come to the United States. I do not blame them. If I 
were in their situation, I am sure I would be trying to do exactly the 
same thing.
  But we must ask each other, Mr. Speaker, we must as those of us who 
have been elected and the Nation's future put in our hands for at least 
this period of time, we must ask ourselves if massive immigration on 
the scale that we have been witnessing it over the last couple of 
decades is in fact the best thing for America from this point on.
  Mr. Speaker, in the heyday of immigration into this Nation, in the 
late 1800s, in the early 1900s when my grandparents came here, the 
height of immigration, we call that the Golden Era, in fact we never 
had more than a couple hundred thousand immigrants a year during that 
period of time.
  This year, and for every year for the last decade or more, we have 
had at least 1 million immigrants a year over that period of time. We 
have had about another 250,000 a year who come here every year under 
refugee status.
  Now, I am going to try to explain what has happened here by the use 
of this chart. As my colleagues can see, in 1970, the population of the 
United States was 203 million. By the year 2000, the population had 
gone up to 281 million.
  How much of this population increase can be attributed to 
immigration, and how much can be attributed to what we would call the 
natural, the birth rate of the people here that we refer to as the baby 
boomers and the people who are indigenous to the United States prior to 
this time?
  The green area of this chart indicates what the growth in this 
country would have been, what the population of this Nation would have 
been in the year 2000, the 2000 census, had it not been for 
immigration. As my colleagues can see, it would have been about 243 
million people. It is actually 281 million people.
  By the way, this is a very low count because it does not really 
capture the number of especially illegal immigrants who are here in the 
country, and there are millions and millions of them.
  But one can see, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about here, in that 
we have had almost the exact same growth rate from the baby boomer 
generation, we call the baby boom echo, because we are having an 
increased birth rate in the United States, and it will continue to 
increase until about the year 2020. It then levels off, and it actually 
starts downward. That is what we would call the natural birth rate here 
in the United States taking out immigration.
  But the fact is that immigrants and their descendants amount to 
almost exactly as much growth in the last 10 years as the entire baby 
boom echo, bringing this up to 281 million.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a time when this land could absorb this kind 
of population growth. But I suggest to my colleagues that every single 
day on the floor of this House, when Members of the Democratic Party 
get up and talk about their problems, the problems in California 
especially, the problems with energy consumption in the United States 
generally, they always blame it on the producers, the price gouging 
electric producers, power producers.

  Even we, Mr. Speaker, on the other side trying to explain supply and 
demand to those people who have a desire to not listen miss the 
important point that this particular thing plays in the debate over 
natural resources in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues that what we are seeing in 
California today we are going to see happen throughout the United 
States as a result of massive population increases, increases in 
population that force a demand on resources. It is a natural function.
  We are actually in many States below where we were several years ago 
in per capita use of resources, per capita use of energy resources 
specifically. We have been able to conserve enough. We have been able 
to improve products. We have been able to do a number of things that 
actually have reduced per capita usage.
  But it does not matter when the number of people in this country 
keeps climbing so dramatically. I want to tell my colleagues how 
dramatic it is going to be with this other chart here.
  I just returned recently, I had an opportunity to speak in Los 
Angeles. As most people know, Los Angeles is a city that is inundated 
with immigration. The numbers of people are growing dramatically. I 
have to tell my colleagues that, for the most part, it has affected the 
quality of life in that city.
  A lot of people I talk to actually use the phrase we have escaped 
from Los Angeles. They had moved to all the areas in the suburbs 
outside. Many, many more people I know living in my own community in my 
district came from California, and they came because they said it is a 
quality of life issue.
  It is absolutely true that the quality of life has been eroding both 
in Los Angeles and other areas where massive numbers of people are 
congregated. We find that as a result, of course, tremendous demands 
are placed on resources.
  We recognize that what was just yesterday a beautiful pasture is 
today sprouting houses. We recognize that where we took a walk with our 
dog and with our family maybe just a few months ago is now some sort of 
industrial park development. A road is coming through in an area that 
was a pleasant pasture land a short time ago.
  In Colorado, we are forced with enormous expenditures for 
infrastructural development all to meet what, population growth. 
Population growth. A lot of people think to themselves, well, gosh, is 
it the case that we are having such an enormous growth of population 
just internally in this country? Because I know most people are quite 
concerned. I mean, the two-child family, a lot of people recognize that 
that is what is, maybe, the optimum number, and they try very much to 
achieve just that goal.
  Well, it is not that birth rate that we are concerned about. It is 
not the natural birth rate in the country that will propel us into this 
dire strait that is the expansion of the Los Angeles all over the 
United States of America.
  Nothing against the people who live there in Los Angeles. Many people 
I am sure love it. But I will tell my colleagues that it is a 
megalopolis by anybody's definition, and it faces some of the most 
difficult situations of any city in the United States as a result of 
that.
  That is what I am referring to when I talk about the fact that we are 
expanding. That is exactly what cities are going to be looking like all 
over the United States in a relatively short time because this chart 
shows what is going to happen.

                              {time}  1600

  This is the dramatic evidence of population and what will happen if 
we continue to have immigration at this particular level. This does not 
presume to define what will happen to the population because of legal 
immigration. Remember, this is just what is going to happen by the year 
2100 to the population of the United States of America if we allow 
immigration to continue at the numbers that we have today.
  Again, I have to reiterate, it does not count the fact that we are 
doubling our immigration rate every year with illegal immigrants. About 
1 million illegals come in every year. About 2 to 3 million we gain. 
Nobody is really sure, of course, we cannot really count them all that 
easily, but the best prediction we have of this is that 2 to 3 million 
a year are net gains. So, in fact, this doubles. This doubles if 
present trends continue, 571 million at 2100.
  Then where will our cities be? Then how much will gas prices be? How 
difficult will it be for us to deliver natural gas from one place to 
another?

[[Page H3199]]

 How much will it cost to do that? What will the smog be like in these 
cities? What will be the quality of life for Americans in the year 2100 
if we allow immigration to continue at this level?
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is nothing any of us here would like 
to think of. We cannot describe it as a pleasant place to be under 
these circumstances. That is why I characterize this as a threat, 
almost equal with the threat posed to the United States externally by 
aggressor nations.
  This is happening, and we are doing it. We have the ability to 
control this, Mr. Speaker. This is something we can handle because in 
fact we have the power in this body to control immigration, at least to 
try to bring it under control. Certainly there will always be people 
coming across our borders illegally, but we have to at least try to 
preserve the integrity of the border. We must at least try to reduce 
immigration.
  Can we handle 50,000 a year? Yes. Can we handle 100,000 a year? Yes. 
Can we handle 150,000 a year? Okay. Give me 200,000 a year, but not a 
million a year legally and twice that many illegally. We cannot handle 
it. It is the numbers. It is not where they come from. I do not care 
where they are coming from, whether it is Mexico or Guatemala or China 
or Cuba or Haiti. I do not care. The place of origin is not important; 
it is the numbers. It is the numbers. This is not a racial issue. It is 
the numbers.
  I am somewhat discouraged because it is so difficult to get this 
subject dealt with openly, even, as I say, here in this body. People 
are afraid to discuss it. People choose to avoid it. As I was walking 
over here with the staff person carrying these charts, we were walking 
through the tunnel area coming over and an another Member of the House 
walked by and he said, oh, you are going to do a Special Order? I said, 
yes. He said, what about? I said, immigration. I am trying to talk 
about immigration control. He said, oh, brother, good luck. He said 
good luck because he knows that this is not a popular subject. It is 
very difficult to get my colleagues to really want to focus on it, but 
I think it is an enormously important thing for us to do.
  We control immigration. No State does. No State has the ability to 
establish numbers for the people coming in. They cannot control their 
own borders. That is uniquely the territory of the United States, the 
Federal Government. It is our responsibility. It is a responsibility, 
Mr. Speaker, that I think we have abdicated. We have done so for a lot 
of reasons. We have abdicated this responsibility, to a certain extent, 
and have allowed this massive immigration because there are political 
implications to this. And, yes, I will say it, political parties and 
specific individuals within political parties want to manipulate and 
use immigration as a political tool.
  We all recall that in the last administration, the President, then-
President Clinton, forced the INS to go through this hurry-up process 
to bring all these people in and give them citizenship. Well, why, I 
wonder? Why did he force them to ratchet up the time frame involved, 
shorten the time frame involved and ratchet up their energy to get all 
these people registered, get them all in here in the United States, get 
them to be citizens, get them registered? Because, of course, they turn 
into Democrat votes. Let us be serious about this. We all recognize the 
politics of this issue.
  I know it is another one of those things nobody likes to say, but it 
is the truth. And as a result of the fact that these populations are, 
and I will say it, manipulated, and I believe they are manipulated by 
political parties and by politicians, we are going to find it difficult 
to actually bring the numbers down.
  Now, that is one thing that has done it. The other thing, of course, 
has been business. Businesses in the United States are very, very 
content to continue to hire people, immigrants coming in here legally 
and illegally. Why? Because they will work for less. It is not nuclear 
science here we are talking about. If I can hire somebody for a lot 
less than I would have to pay someone who is a citizen of the United 
States, I am tempted to do it. They are not supposed to. There are 
supposed to be laws against it. But everyone knows that they are 
regularly ignored. We all know the INS does absolutely nothing to 
actually enforce those laws. Once in a while, a little tiny feint here 
or there, a raid here or there to pretend they care. But in reality 
this is not an area where INS pays any attention.

  I hear this from my community and from people all the time, from 
employers who say, Tancredo, I wish you would get off this thing, this 
immigration issue. I hire a lot of people who I know are here 
illegally, but I have to do it anyway. They will admit it. And 
certainly they will admit to hiring illegal immigrants because they can 
pay them less. Well, is that in the immigrant's best interest?
  I mentioned earlier there are two interests here: What can America do 
for our own people, and what can we do for the rest of the world? Mr. 
Speaker, I suggest that people coming here and working for low wages 
are continually exploited. They are exploited by business. They are 
even exploited by the labor unions. And they are exploited by the 
people who bring them here, the ``coyotes'' they are called, people who 
pack them into vans and on the back of trucks, or packed in with other 
kinds of products in order to get them across the border, sometimes 
dead. We have had, in the last months in Colorado, several cases where 
people were found dead. Perhaps their car was in an accident. A van was 
in an accident not too long ago, and 13 people were killed in the van, 
and several others hurt, in a small van. They were all smashed in 
there.
  They are coming across the borders in greater numbers. They are 
risking life and limb to get here. And I do not blame them for doing 
it. I do not blame the immigrants. I blame our government for not being 
willing to deal with this issue. It is extremely difficult for us to 
bring issues like this forward, but I will continue to do it as long as 
I have the opportunity to do so.
  There is a June 11 special issue of ``Time'' magazine entitled ``The 
Border is Vanishing.'' It says: ``The Border is Vanishing Before Our 
Eyes Creating a New World for All of Us. Welcome to Amexico,'' their 
world is called. A world, of course, in which English is not spoken, a 
world in which the numbers, the population numbers, are affecting the 
quality of life in the way I have described and is described in this 
``Time'' magazine article.
  This is something with which we must deal, even if it is difficult to 
think about it. We have to do so. It is our responsibility as people 
who have taken an oath to defend this Nation against all enemies, 
external and internal. And I am not saying that immigrants are internal 
enemies. I am saying that immigration is a threat, huge massive 
immigration on the scale with which we have now observed it lo these 
many years is a threat to this Nation. And this is the best example I 
can provide to prove that.
  This is where we will be, Mr. Speaker. This is not a place I think 
most of us would find appropriate or most of us would want our children 
to be living in. We want to bequeath them something else, both the 
children of people who have been here for a long time and I believe the 
children of recent immigrants.
  I think many recent immigrants, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, 
agree with us on this issue, agree with us that a cap has got to be put 
on it. It is the old thing about, I'm here, now you can shut the door. 
But they recognize the impact that massive immigration, legal and 
illegal, has. It is not just people who have been here for a long 
period of time.
  So I do really hope that we will take serious account of these two 
issues, the issue of the threats posed to the United States, again 
externally by the People's Republic of China, and internally by massive 
uncontrolled immigration of this nature.

                          ____________________


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: