|
October 9, 2001
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak about a couple of topics, in particular, of course, the issue that is always of interest to me and I
believe should be to our colleagues and to the American people, and that is, the issue of immigration, the porous nature of our borders and the very devastating effect
that has had on the United States literally and figuratively.
I want to preface my remarks this evening Mr. Speaker with some observations that I had while I was waiting to address the House.
One of the previous hours was taken by the members of the Hispanic Caucus, and they spent their hour dutifully recounting the notable achievements of Hispanic
Americans in the United States, both in the military and in other areas; and as I say, dutifully, and it is appropriate that those observations were made and those
accomplishments were lauded.
As I listened to them, it struck me just how peculiar it is to have such a thing in this Congress. Certainly I think it is not unique here. There are probably State
legislatures around the country that probably have a similar entity as a Hispanic caucus. That is a unique thing here, of course, and interesting from a variety of
different standpoints. But it brings to mind the problem we are having in this country with trying to integrate into our society all peoples of various ethnic origins.
There is to some extent a desire on the part of many people to integrate into our society and do so as quickly as possible as they get here, newly arrived
individuals, new immigrants to the American scene, and that is as it has been since the inception of the country. Most people coming into the United States are
coming here for reasons that help them adjust to the American scene by disassociating themselves with their past and integrating themselves into the American
mosaic.
I think to a large extent, although it is understandable, as I say, for individuals to form themselves up into organizations to reflect relatively narrow points of view
and attitudes, it is peculiar, I think, to have organizations like that in this body and in other legislative groups around the country, and this all came home to me
recently in Denver, when I was asked to speak to a group called the Hispanic Human Resources Association.
These are individuals who work in companies throughout the State of Colorado in the capacity as human resource development people. It was kind of intriguing to
me when I first got their offer that there was such an organization, first of all, Hispanic human resource administrators. I mean, I think to myself, well, why Hispanic
human resource administrators? Why not Greek human resource, whatever, and of course, I wanted to go and speak to them.
They wanted to talk to me about my position on immigration, a position, of course, which is very, very unpopular among a number of Hispanic organizations, not
so unpopular among many Hispanic individuals who live here in the United States, who themselves see the problems that are created as a result of massive
immigration, legal and illegal, but many organizations, of course LARASA and others, who attack my position quite vehemently.
They and this group to a large extent reflected that point of view, but I wanted to go and I wanted to debate that point in front of them, and I was there with a
representative of another Member of this body, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE). And although she could not be there that night, she sent a
representative, and he and I were the focal point of the evening discussion.
At the conclusion of our discussions, a gentleman in the back of the room stood up and he was Hispanic. He said to me that he was concerned about the fact that,
as he pointed up to the dais where we were sitting, that he and the other Hispanics in the audience were not represented by the people at the dais.
[Time: 21:30]
In other words, not by me or by the representative from the office of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE). And he was very annoyed by that. And
he indicated that that was really his problem; that that was a major problem that he has generally with American society, with his particular situation in living in
Denver, as I assume he did.
And I was extremely interested in that observation because it goes to what I am talking about here tonight in terms of this Hispanic Caucus that exists in the body. I
said to him, I am really intrigued by what you say, because what you have suggested is that because I am not Hispanic nor is my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE), I cannot represent you and neither can she for only that reason; not because we may not see eye to eye on the issue of taxation or
Social Security reform or the degree of support for the military or any of the wide variety of issues that confront us all on this floor day after day after day. No, not
for any of those reasons did he feel that he is not represented and could not be represented by either my colleague or myself. He felt that he could not be represented
because neither of us, neither my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, nor I, is Hispanic.
That was really a fascinating thing in a way, because this is really a problem in our society, Mr. Speaker, I believe, this balkanization of America, this assumption
that in order for us to be truly ``represented'' in any body, any legislative body, it can only be someone of our ethnic background. So I said to him, do you know
what that means, sir? That means if you are telling me I cannot represent your interests, and I may very well not represent your point of view on a wide variety of
issues, because I assume you are a very liberal, sort of maybe a Democrat-leaning individual and I am a conservative Republican, so you are probably right that I do
not represent your political point of view, I will give you that. But it is not because I am Italian; it is because I simply do not agree with your issues. But you are also
suggesting that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE), does not represent your point of view, even though I will bet you anything that on
every single one of your issues, everything that you can talk about, everything that you can possibly come up with as a public policy issue, I will bet you that she
agrees with you. But you do not think that is good enough; that she agrees with you on every single public policy issue. You say she has to be Hispanic to represent
you. Well, of course, what that means is that you cannot represent me. You could never represent me; not because you do not believe what I believe, but because
you are Hispanic and I am Italian.
I mean does that make sense to anybody here? Do we really believe that that is the way we ought to determine who gets elected to office, based solely on their
ethnic background? And yet that is what this is all about. We draw lines. We are in the process now around the country of redrawing district lines for the Congress
of the United States. And, interestingly, we continue to think about and courts continue to adjudicate lines drawn to protect specific minority groups so that minority
groups, black and Hispanic, can have their representation here. But, of course, that begs the question, does the color of our skin make us incapable of responding to
the needs and desires and wishes and attitudes of our constituency, if it is not the same color as the majority of the people who live there in that particular district?
This is a very dangerous thing, Mr. Speaker. And I do not blame my colleagues for getting up here tonight and extolling the virtues of Hispanic Americans. They
are wonderful people, and I certainly join them in their praise of the accomplishments of many people. But in a way it almost makes you wonder why we have to say
it in that way. Why do we have to say these are the accomplishments of Hispanic Americans? Is it not just the fact these people did marvelous things and they are
Americans? Is that not what we should really be giving them credit for, in order to not create and continue this divide that simply, I think, personally, makes it very
difficult for America to succeed in its goal of a united States of America, of a united people of America?
I see banners and signs all over. I am sure my colleagues have seen them, too, Mr. Speaker. I saw them on U.S. 66 coming from the airport, great big
[Page: H6453] GPO's PDF
hand-painted banners people had hung over the overpass and they said ``United We Stand.'' Let us be united. That was kind of the underlying theme of all of these
banners I saw; that we were united as a people against the threat of international terrorism. That is exactly what we have to be. There is no two ways about it. We
must be united in order to confront this threat and to be successful in that confrontation.
It does not help us, I think, in our quest to be united to constantly be reminded of our differences, again be they ethnic or religious or anything else. It
is problematic from that standpoint; it is detrimental to American interests. And I worry about the degree to which this affects our culture, and I worry about the
fact that it has an impact certainly on this body and it has an impact throughout the country. Again, what an odd thing, in a way.
I wonder what the founders would say, Mr. Speaker. I would be fascinated to know what the founders of the Nation would have said if during their deliberations
on the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence someone were to have suggested to them that it would be important to add a provision
in the Constitution that assured that every ethnic group that one could possibly identify in the United States should have a special area in the country where they are
highly populated, have that special area cut out and have a representative of that ethnic group especially for them. I wonder what they would have said about that. I
wonder if they would have suggested that that was ``a good idea'' for American democracy. I do not think so.
As I say, I mentioned to that gentleman that night that it was wrong, I believe. And by the way he responded and he said, are you telling me you really think we
should not have separate groups to represent our points? I said, you are right, if what you are telling me is that your point of view needs to be represented by
someone of a particular ethnic background. Then I am telling you I am opposed to that. I am totally opposed to that. I am Italian American, 100 percent Italian
American; but I will tell you this, I would no more cast my vote for another Italian American simply because he or she was Italian than I would cast a vote blindly.
Because it depends on what they think, what they believe, who they are politically. That is how I would vote.
I know people in the State of Colorado for whom I have voted, Lilly Nunez, who is a lady I have known for 25 years, and who I nominated for national committee
woman from Colorado; Bob Martinez, who I supported for national committee man. I did so not because either one of those two people are Hispanic, but because
they were Republicans and they were the kind of Republicans that I wanted to see in power, in place. They were conservatives. And that is the only thing that really
matters to me. It is not their ethnic background.
But if I were to live by the dictates of the folks who come in here and form these caucuses and develop these groups and keep trying to divide America into these
various balkanized States, then I would say, no, I could not possibly, evenly though I know Joe and Lilly Nunez very well, and I believe that they are solid
Republicans, I could not vote for them because, gee whiz, they are Hispanic and they could not really represent my interests. That is idiotic. But that is the point of
view that these organizations want us to proceed upon, and they go into court throughout the Nation and try to get courts to adjudicate this redistricting issue on their
behalf so that they will cut up districts in order to have representation of a specific ethnic group. And I think that is abhorrent.
I was struck by that, as I say, as I was listening to the debate tonight. Once again, please do not misunderstand me or misconstrue what I am stating here tonight. I
absolutely agree with and lend my voice to the adulation for all of the accomplishments of the Hispanic individuals they mentioned. The Americans they mentioned.
The Americans. No hyphen. The Americans. They did extraordinary things, the 38 members they identified; winning the congressional medal of honor. I say God
bless every single one of them. The Nobel prize, and the various other things they were talking about. God bless every single one of those people for what they did
for America as Americans. And that is the way they should be remembered.
Now, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are confronted by an incredible dilemma this evening on the floor of this House and as a Congress of the United States,
and that is how to construct the most powerful alliance that we can possibly think of in order to confront the terrorists who have perpetrated such heinous acts on the
United States on September 11. The spawn of evil is the way I identify these people.
It seems to me that there are some interesting things that we confront in that particular endeavor; and one is, as I say, trying to build a coalition of countries who
will help us in a variety of ways: Contributing armed forces, contributing financial support, agreeing to do something within their own financial systems to stop money
from being transferred among and between these organizations, share with us intelligence information, help us maintain some sort of integrity on our borders. All of
these things are the signs of what a friend would do.
It is interesting to me, and I think it elucidates the problem that we are having around the world when we talk about one particular ``friend'' of the United States
and what they are doing for us, and that ``friend,'' and I put that in quotes again, is Mexico. Mr. Speaker, after September 11, literally scores of nations immediately
rushed to our support, promised various degrees of help and support. But one was conspicuous by its absence, one of our friends. One of our neighbors was
conspicuous by its absence in support for our endeavors, and that, of course, was the country of Mexico.
[Time: 21:45]
Now, if my friends in the Hispanic Caucus here tonight really want to do something for the United States, then let me make a suggestion to them because they have
chosen again to form themselves up into this specific sort of ethnic group. Let me suggest to them that this is a very positive role that group can play. Instead of trying
to divide America, separate America, it seems to me that they could make a plea to the Mexican Government and to Vicente Fox.
On behalf of the Hispanic Caucus in the Congress of the United States, it would have been heartwarming to hear them say, President Fox, please give the United
States the support we need in order to defend ourselves against these terrorists. Please do not hold back any more. Please try to overcome the objections within
your own government, which have been noted in the paper here several times, and be forthcoming and bold in your willingness to help the United States.
This is an article which appeared in the Washington Post on September 26. Mexico City, September 26, President Vicente Fox fighting charges that he has been
lukewarm in reacting to terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. He came to the United States and sort of wanted to do some damage control. Fox's
comments in the speech Tuesday followed a period of uncharacteristic quiet from the usually loquacious Mexican leader who had made friendly relations with
Washington a trademark of his 10-month old administration. After calling President Bush and offering public condolences after the attacks, Fox seemed to focus on
domestic Mexican issues, at least in public. And despite months of globe trotting and talking about how Mexico wants a greater role in foreign affairs, the article goes
on to say, there was no trip to the rubble of the World Trade Center, no photo op of the dos amigos at the White House.
In response, some Mexicans called Bush and Fox distant friends. An editorial in London's Economist magazine asked whether Fox was a ``fair-weather friend.''
Since the attacks, it says, Fox has been in an uncomfortable spot. Voices from the Mexican Congress, intellectuals and the public have long made it difficult for the
Mexican Government to be seen as too supportive of the United States. Mexico has a tradition of avoiding getting swept in the U.S. policies and refusing to
intervene in foreign conflicts. Nationalism often has been defined as anti-Americanism,
[Page: H6454] GPO's PDF
anti-Americanism from our neighbor to the south. Refusal to provide the support that we should expect from our neighbors and friends. Refusal to provide the
support that one would expect from a country for which the word trust was used over and over and over again during President Fox's visit here to the United States.
He must have used that 10 times during his speech to this body. We need to trust one another he said, over and over again.
Well, President Fox, if the Hispanic Caucus will not bring this to your attention, then let me. If you want to develop that trust that you ask for, there are things we
can do. You can help us first of all by securing our border, our mutual border, our common border. Help us in defending that border against incursions. Help us in
stopping the traffic of illegal aliens across that border, whatever nationality, wherever they come from.
Mr. Fox, you recognize the problem, I would say to him, Mr. Speaker. You recognize the problem in your own country, where you have not too long ago ordered
the military, the Mexican military, to go down and defend the border between Mexico and Guatemala from incursions of Guatemalan immigrants whom you identified
as people that had to be kept out because of the problem they caused in Mexico.
Now, in doing that, President Fox, I would say, I do not challenge you. You make the decisions that are necessary for the well-being of your country. So then help
us, I would ask him, help us in doing exactly the same thing on your northern border. Of course, he is constrained from doing that, Mr. Speaker, because the politics
inside Mexico are such that he could probably never get away with such a statement.
The article in the Post goes on to say, Carlos Fuentes, Mexico's best known novelist, also weighed in noting his concern that the declared U.S. war against ``an
enemy without a face,'' could bring civilian casualties. Fuentes reminded Mexico of its independence from its powerful neighbor, saying in widely published
comments, quote, ``we are partners of the United States, not their hangers-on.''
The newspaper Reforma drew a scorecard. This is fascinating, Mr. Speaker; and I really hope our colleagues pay close attention to this. This is a Mexican
newspaper called Reforma. It drew a scorecard of how supportive 15 countries have been for Bush. Mexico came in second from last, tied with China, slightly
above Iraq and Cuba. The rankings were based on 10 signs of solidarity such as holding a national moment of silence, visiting Bush, granting permission for the use
of
military bases or air space.
We have refused so far to make a public issue of this lack of response on the part of our southern neighbors because I think we do not want to embarrass them or
ourselves. I think the President has not asked President Fox for overt shows of support, signs of support, because he knows he cannot get it from President Fox. He
knows that the Mexican people do not support it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would very much have appreciated hearing tonight from the Hispanic Caucus on the floor of this Congress how they were going to deal with
this issue, again, since they choose to form themselves up in that kind of an organization, it is fair for me to ask. Why will they not talk to the President of Mexico and
your colleagues down in the Mexican Congress and ask them to provide the same sort of support to the United States that Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay have
provided?
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the countries I have just noted were listed in the paper today. As I was flying in, there was a map of the world and they were
listing the countries of the Americas that had helped the United States. Canada, of course, add to that list. And the ones I just mentioned, those were identified as
being, to the best of my recollection, those were identified as being the countries in the Americas that had come forth and helped us in our time of need. One was,
again, conspicuous by its absence, Mr. Speaker. Where was Mexico? Where is Mexico in this dispute?
Here are excerpts from Mexican newspapers. Many Mexican newspapers reacted to the first strikes by the United States and England against Afghanistan by
criticizing U.S. President George Bush and questioning Mexico's governmental support. Daily La Jornada printed an editorial saying that the attack was ``not about
justice or international law. It was a unilateral and arbitrary act of revenge.''
An editorial called the act ``Bush's holy war'' and said it is the start of a war in which Mexico has no moral, political, or military reason to participate. I want to
repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is the editorial in La Jornada, a daily in Mexico. It is the start of a war in which Mexico has no moral, political or military reason to
participate.
The murder of 6,000 innocent people in the Trade Towers and the planes that were used as missiles does not create a moral dilemma for Mexico according to
this. Well, what in the name of God would if that does not do it?
The newspaper Excelsior said, ``Mexico should not distance itself from its political tradition of rejecting war to resolve even the most difficult international
controversies.'' The Daily added that Vicente Fox's government ``voiced its support of the actions of the U.S. and Great Britain.'' Hopefully, it said, ``that was not an
effort to appease the Bush Government.'' The Bush Government.
La Cronica de Hoy printed in its editorial page, quote, ``They will start two wars. One of the U.S. against the Taliban and one based on threats. In the first missiles
are launched at targets that fail to feel the power and courage of the most powerful Nation.''
An editorial in that La Jornada was the strongest yet, saying it is not necessary to go back decades to see the moral similarity between the U.S. Government and its
current enemy at the moment, covert acts of censorship and lies.
This paper in Mexico compares the United States with its current enemy. We, I guess according to this paper, are similar to the Taliban, similar to the bin Laden
organization, al-Qaeda.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on here with these quotes from Mexican newspapers. Suffice it to say that our friend in the south is not showing us that degree of
trust that was called for by its President when he was here. Nor, Mr. Speaker, should we extend any trust under these conditions.
Street vendors, I am told, in Mexico are selling T-shirts that say essentially in Spanish, ``Go Taliban.'' I am told that the sales are brisk.
For night after night I have come on this floor, Mr. Speaker, and I have talked about my concerns with massive immigration; and I continue to raise those concerns
tonight because I believe that this is a significant problem for the United States, that a country to our south that contributes the greatest bulk of the immigration to the
number of immigrants to the United States with this kind of attitude, this is not really all that healthy for the United States. We find ourselves in a difficult position if
these are the attitudes that these people bring with them. I do not know that they are.
My concern is that they may be. And I am also concerned about simply the numbers. It is the massive numbers coming from any country. In this case it is Mexico.
But the massive numbers make it very difficult for integration to occur. It only exacerbates the problem of the divisive nature of these debates. Quite frankly, Mr.
Speaker, let us go ahead and talk about the political reality of massive immigration.
One reason we have it, one reason we cannot stop it, one reason why it is so hard to get people to address it is because there are political ramifications to it. One
party enjoys a great benefit as a result of massive immigration. People become citizens in the United States, or even if they do not, many of them still vote illegally.
We have cases of that popping up all over. Just recently one of the groups of terrorists or it is one in the group of terrorists had actually voted in United States
elections twice and was not a citizen, needless to say. So it is not hard for voter fraud to occur. We do not know the extent to which it occurs, but I think it is
significant.
At any rate, people come here and are attracted to one particular party who promises, more than anything else, government largess; and that is one reason why we
cannot stop immigration, legal or illegal.
[Time: 22:00]
I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but I believe with all my heart that we have
[Page: H6455] GPO's PDF
a serious problem as a result of porous borders and our unwillingness or inability or a lack of desire to actually create borders with integrity.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If, God forbid, another event were to occur in this country of the nature of the September 11 events and if those
events were perpetrated by people who came across our borders illegally, snuck into the United States, or were here on visas that were extended, overextended, or
were here on visas that were violated because they were not doing what they were supposed to do or were here because we let them in because even though they
have been associated with terrorist organizations, right now, Mr. Speaker, that by law, by a law we have, that is not enough to keep them out. If they put down on a
piece of paper, yes, I am a member of al Qaeda, that does not mean we could keep them out right now. We asked for the ability to do that. The administration sent
a bill to the Committee on the Judiciary to ask for the ability to do just that, and it was turned down, it was watered down in order to get bipartisan support.
So we have this problem. We have open borders, essentially. We have right now almost a quarter of a million people living in the United States who have gone
through the system and been found guilty of violating their visa, or guilty of some law, the violation of an American law, and they were ordered to be deported, Mr.
Speaker, but they are still here. A quarter of a million people have been ordered deported but are simply roaming the country because the INS chooses not to go
after them. I will say this again, that if anything else happens and it is the same sort of situation, somebody else coming into this country and doing that and we choose
to do nothing about securing our borders, not only are we irresponsible in this body but we are culpable.
We look to do everything we can. We go to country after country asking for support. We look to cut off their money supply. We look to destroy their
infrastructure. We look to every single way there is to try and stop terrorists from perpetrating heinous acts, their acts of hatred on this country, but we are afraid to
do one thing. We are afraid to actually begin to control our own borders, because there is a political problem here, a political issue. I think that is despicable. No one
should care about how these people will eventually vote. No one should care about whose party would be more benefited by the massive numbers of people coming
across our borders. What we should care about is the safety of the Americans here of every race, religion, creed, color. We should be concerned about every single
Hispanic American here, citizen, every single black American, every Hindu, Muslim, whatever, I do not care what.
That is our main concern, Mr. Speaker. It is not some political need to keep these borders open that we should be concerned about. And if that concern overrides
our major responsibility as a country, as a Federal Government, then I say shame on us, because our responsibility is here clear. The Federal Government has one
responsibility, primary responsibility. It is more important than health and human services, it is more important than the Department of Education, the Department of
Interior, the Department of Transportation. It is more important than all of that. It is to protect the lives and property of the people in this country. That is it. That is
our main goal. Everything else pales in comparison. If we refuse to take that one step that would help in that direction, and I am not suggesting for a moment that
even if we seal our borders, we would be absolutely able to be sure, positively, undeniably we will never have another attack of this nature, certainly I cannot say
that, but I can say this, we will lessen the chance. And I will dare anyone, I challenge anyone to stand up and explain to me how we can possibly keep open borders
under these circumstances. I just simply do not understand it. But we will do it, Mr. Speaker, unless the people of this Nation rise up in a loud voice and let their
representatives know that they are concerned, more concerned even than the political problem of closing down the border, the political ramifications of such a thing.
Again I ask my friends in the Hispanic Caucus, please send a message to our friends, if they are friends, in Mexico. We need their help. It is not just our Nation we
are trying to protect. It is civilization. It is not just our morality that we are trying to defend, it is the morality of civilized men and women all over the world. And we
need their help. The sign of a friend would be to say, we put aside all these regional differences now, we know that there is something bigger, more dangerous that
affects us all, and we will help you secure your border, America, and we will do something else: If the Arab nations that control OPEC, if they attempt to blackmail
the United States again by raising the cost of oil, we will sell you oil from our state-owned oil company at lower prices, and we will look to see everything we can do
in terms of intelligence gathering to help you in your efforts to quash al Qaeda and any of the other organizations that are designed for the purpose of bringing death
and destruction to the United States and the Western hemisphere and civilization.
Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil. Can their efforts be any more in common with ours than Mexico? But they understood that there is a moral dimension to this that
extends all the way through and across their borders. How could we not expect the same from our, quote, trusted neighbor in the South? It is not just our safety that
I plead for their support on, it is their own. It is civilization itself that is threatened, make no bones about this. This is not just a war between the United States and
Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda or any of the other various individual terrorist groups. This is a war about whether civilization as we know it, where free thought and
individual freedom reign, will be overtaken by the darkness of a barbaric time.
So it is in your interest, Mexico, not just ours, to help in this endeavor. Until that happens, I do not believe we can call you a trusted friend.
|
