[Congressional Record: July 23, 2001 (House)]
[Page H4395-H4399]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr23jy01-55]
FAMILY SPONSOR IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 1892) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
to provide for the acceptance of an affidavit of support from another
eligible sponsor if the original sponsor has died and the Attorney
General has determined for humanitarian reasons that the original
sponsor's classification petition should not be revoked, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1892
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Family Sponsor Immigration
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. SUBSTITUTION OF ALTERNATIVE SPONSOR IF ORIGINAL
SPONSOR HAS DIED.
(a) Permitting Substitution of Alternative Close Family
Sponsor in Case of Death of Petitioner.--
(1) Recognition of alternative sponsor.--Section 213A(f)(5)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)(5))
is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Non-petitioning cases.--Such term also includes an
individual who does not meet the requirement of paragraph
(1)(D) but who--
``(A) accepts joint and several liability with a
petitioning sponsor under paragraph (2) or relative of an
employment-based immigrant under paragraph (4) and who
demonstrates (as provided under paragraph (6)) the means to
maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of
the Federal poverty line; or
``(B) is a spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
sibling, child (if at least 18 years of age), son, daughter,
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent, or grandchild of a
sponsored alien or a legal guardian of a sponsored alien,
meets the requirements of paragraph (1) (other than
subparagraph (D)), and executes an affidavit of support with
respect to such alien in a case in which--
``(i) the individual petitioning under section 204 for the
classification of such alien died after the approval of such
petition; and
``(ii) the Attorney General has determined for humanitarian
reasons that revocation of such petition under section 205
would be inappropriate.''.
(2) Conforming amendment permitting substitution.--Section
212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``(including any additional sponsor
required under section 213A(f))'' and inserting ``(and any
additional sponsor required under section 213A(f) or any
alternative sponsor permitted under paragraph (5)(B) of such
section)''.
(3) Additional conforming amendments.--Section 213A(f) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)) is amended, in each of
paragraphs (2) and (4)(B)(ii), by striking ``(5).'' and
inserting ``(5)(A).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to deaths occurring before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that, in
the case of a death occurring before such date, such
amendments shall apply only if--
(1) the sponsored alien--
(A) requests the Attorney General to reinstate the
classification petition that was filed with respect to the
alien by the deceased and approved under section 204 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) before such
death; and
(B) demonstrates that he or she is able to satisfy the
requirement of section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(4)(C)(ii)) by reason of such amendments; and
(2) the Attorney General reinstates such petition after
making the determination described in section
213A(f)(5)(B)(ii) of such Act (as amended by subsection
(a)(1) of this Act).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1892, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001,
was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and
amended in the Committee on the Judiciary by our other colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). I want to thank both of them for
bringing to our attention an unintended quirk in the Immigration and
Nationality Act that needlessly keeps families separated. I want to
thank them for developing this bill, which brings families back
together.
Each year the United States provides hundreds of thousands of
immigrant visas for spouses and other family members of U.S. citizens
and permanent residents. Tragically, each year a number of these U.S.
citizens and permanent residents petitioning for their family members
will die before the immigration process is complete. Generally, INS
regulations provide for the automatic revocation of a petition when the
petitioner dies. The consequences are severe for a beneficiary when his
or her petitioner dies before the beneficiary has adjusted status or
received an immigrant visa.
{time} 1500
If no other relative can qualify as a petitioner, then the
beneficiary would lose an opportunity to become a permanent resident.
For instance, if a petition is revoked because a widowed citizen's
father dies after petitioning for an adult unmarried daughter, the
daughter would have no living mother to file a new petition. If another
relative can file an immigrant visa petition for the beneficiary, the
beneficiary would still go to the end of the line if the visa category
were numerically limited.
For instance, if the daughter's mother was alive, she could file a
new first-family preference petition. However, the daughter would lose
the priority date, based upon the time her father's petition had been
filed with the INS and would receive a later priority date based upon
the filing date of her mother's petition. Given that first-family
preference visas are now available to beneficiaries from Mexico with
priority dates from April, 1994, and are available to those from the
Philippines with priority dates from May, 1988, this can result in a
significant additional delay before a visa is available.
Because of the severe consequences of the revocation of a visa
petition, INS regulations do allow the Attorney General, in his or her
discretion, to determine that, for humanitarian reasons, revocation
would be inappropriate and thus complete the unification of a family.
However, there is a complication. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires that when a family member
petitions for a relative to receive an immigrant visa, that visa can
only be granted if the petitioner signs a legally binding affidavit of
support promising to provide for the support of the immigrant. If the
petitioner has died, obviously he or she cannot sign that affidavit.
Thus, even in cases where the Attorney General feels a humanitarian
waiver of the revocation of the visa petition is warranted, under
current law a permanent resident visa cannot be granted because the
affidavit requirement is unfulfilled.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892 solves this dilemma. It simply provides that
in cases where the petitioner has died and the Attorney General has
determined for humanitarian reasons that revocation of the petition
would be inappropriate, a close family member other than the petitioner
would be allowed to sign the necessary affidavit of support. Eligible
family members of beneficiaries would include spouses, parents,
grandparents, mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law, siblings, adult sons
and daughters, adult sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, and
grandchildren. Legal guardians would also be eligible.
[[Page H4396]]
In order to sign an affidavit of support, the individual would need
to meet the general eligibility requirements needed to be an immigrant
sponsor. Thus, he or she would need to, first, be a citizen or national
of the United States or an alien who is lawfully admitted to the United
States for permanent residence; second, be at least 18 years of age;
third, be domiciled in a State, the District of Columbia, or any
territory or possession of the United States; and, fourth, demonstrate
the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of
the Federal poverty line.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892 is a humanitarian and pro-family piece of
legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1892, and I believe that it is
a legislative initiative that speaks to the cornerstone of immigration
policy in this Nation: family reunification.
The Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001 is a very important
immigration bill. With bipartisan support, we are correcting a glitch
in the immigration law. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I was
pleased to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the
chairman of the subcommittee, on this legislation, along with the
original sponsors of this legislation as well, and I thank them for
their service and leadership.
Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the same
person that petitions for the admission of an immigrant must be the
same person who signs the affidavit of support: the sponsor, that
person is called. So, if the sponsor dies, current law does not allow
someone else to sign the affidavit of support, although they are a
legitimate person, although there is no attempt to commit fraud, and
that person is unable to adjust his or her status to receive an
immigrant visa, even though they have been waiting in a line in a very
procedurally correct manner and adhering to the laws of our Nation.
Such consequences of the law toward a beneficiary when his or her
petitioner dies before the beneficiary has a chance to adjust status or
receive an immigrant visa has been and continues to be too harsh.
H.R. 1892 will amended the Immigration Nationality Act to allow an
alternative sponsor, a close family member other than the petitioner,
as a substitute if the original sponsor of the affidavit of support has
died, assuming all other requirements are met.
Additionally, I am very pleased that we were able to work out an
agreement that further allows alternative sponsors to be a spouse,
parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child, if at least 18
years of age, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent
or grandchild of a sponsored alien or legal guardians of a sponsored
alien, all with the idea of reunifying a family.
This bill, H.R. 1892, which has bipartisan support, is important
because in the event of the death of the sponsor the beneficiary's
application will now be able to have someone else sign the affidavit of
support and the beneficiary's application for permanent residency can
move forward without losing the beneficiary's priority date, in
essence, not having them go to the back of the line and, therefore,
delaying them being reunited with their family.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an important initiative that we have
done in a bipartisan way, and I ask my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001
is a very important immigration bill. With bipartisan support we are
correcting a glitch in the current immigration law.
Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the same
person that petitions for the admission of an immigrant must be the
same person who signs the affidavit of support--the sponsor. So if the
sponsor dies, current law does not allow someone else to sign the
affidavit of support and that person is unable to adjust his or her
status or receive an immigrant visa. Such consequences of the law
toward a beneficiary when his or her petitioner dies before the
beneficiary has a chance to adjust status or receive an immigrant visa
are too harsh.
H.R. 1892 will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow an
alternative sponsor--a close family member other than the petitioner--
as a substitute if the original sponsor of the affidavit of support has
died, assuming all other requirements are met.
H.R. 1892 allows the alternative sponsors to be a: spouse, parent,
mother-in-law, father-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent, or
grandchild of a sponsored alien or a legal guardian of a sponsored
alien.
This bill, H.R. 1892, which has bipartisan support, is important
because in the event of the death of the sponsor, the beneficiary's
application will now be able to have someone else sign the affidavit of
support and the beneficiary's application for permanent residency can
move forward without losing the beneficiary's priority date.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of the bill.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
In January of this year, my office received a letter from a
constituent that hit a roadblock in his attempt to be obtain U.S.
citizenship. His father, who petitioned for my constituent's permanent
U.S. residence over 8 years ago, suddenly passed away. He had long ago
filled out the necessary paperwork and paid the required $1,000 fee.
Last December, my constituent went for his interview with the INS.
His paperwork was in order. He was asked if he had ever been in trouble
with the law or accepted government assistance. The constituent, who
had worked as a manager at a gas station the past 6 years and files his
taxes every year, said no. Everything seemed fine. But a week later a
letter from the INS came, notifying him that his permanent residence
was denied because his petitioner, his father, was dead. Under current
law, he has to go back to the end of the line and begin the 8 to 10
year process all over again.
This roadblock only discourages legal immigration. As millions of
undocumented immigrants enter this country illegally, law-abiding
immigrants like my constituent find that their first interaction with
the United States Government is frustrating and confusing. The news of
this process surely reaches back to the immigrant's home country. Some
might use situations like this as an excuse to forgo the legal process
and instead become illegal aliens. This is no way to promote legal
immigration.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892 would cut down this roadblock in the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996. Currently, if applicant's
petitioner dies after an application is accepted by the INS, the
applicant is automatically returned to the beginning of the entire
nationalization process, a 7 to 8 year process. They cannot substitute
their financial sponsor with another qualified relative.
This legislation would allow for a parent, spouse, son, daughter,
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent, grandchild or sibling, so
long as they qualify, to take up the role of financial sponsor from a
deceased sponsor, without having an interruption in the nationalization
process for the applicant.
It is important to note that this legislation will not allow
unqualified applicants to be adjusted or unqualified sponsors to take
up sponsorship. Nor will this legislation have any impact on the number
of immigrants entering the process. This legislation only affects
applicants already in the adjustment process. This bill is
noncontroversial, a good fix to this infrequent but substantial
problem. It passed the full Committee on the Judiciary by a voice vote.
On July 11, 2001, the President participated in a swearing-in of
immigrants at Ellis Island and announced his support for this measure.
The President said, ``If a child's parent and financial sponsor should
pass away, we should permit the other parent to take over as sponsor.''
The President's recognition that we are a nation of immigrants and
his concern that the naturalization process has become unwieldy for
legal immigrants serves to quickly right this present injustice. More
importantly, his support for such legislation moves us closer to
getting this bill signed into
[[Page H4397]]
law. This legislation would correct an injustice suffered by too many
immigrants that have chosen to adjust their immigration status through
the legal process. Immigrants that apply for this status are
financially secure and contributors to our society, not burdens on it.
These are the immigration cases that should be promoted, not further
frustrated.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank people who have helped on this
bill, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for all his
work on the Committee on the Judiciary; the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) who were very
active in helping us perfect this legislation; and certainly the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the full
committee; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the
chairman of the subcommittee; and the ranking members who have worked
diligently on working this bill through the entire committee.
Finally, I would like to thank the Khan family who brought this issue
to my attention. I look forward to the day when the Khan brothers will
become U.S. citizens. These are hard-working individuals who will only
be an asset to our community and to our country. I am proud to be able
to help them achieve that dream sooner rather than later.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
the chair of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Children.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Family
Immigration Sponsor Act. In fact, a family in my district with a tragic
story has become a well-known example of exactly why this bill is
necessary.
Mrs. Zhenfu Ge, a 73-year-old Chinese national, came to the United
States in 1998 to help care for her dying daughter and her daughter's
two children. Her daughter, my constituent, Yanyu Wong, requested that
her mother be able to stay in America to take care of her grandchildren
after the mother died. Following INS rules, my constituent immediately
submitted the appropriate paperwork to sponsor her mother's petition
for a green card so she could stay in the United States. But,
tragically, on April 15 of this year, my constituent lost her life to
cancer. This was only 11 days before the INS was scheduled to grant
Mrs. Ge permanent resident status.
In a desperate attempt to keep his mother-in-law in the country, my
constituent's husband petitioned to be Mrs. Ge's new sponsor. However,
INS law mandates the sponsor be an adult blood relative. Without an
adult blood relative left alive to sponsor her, Mrs. Ge must go back to
China and restart the process. Realizing the devastating results of
these circumstances, I introduced H.R. 2011, a private bill to allow
Mrs. Ge to remain legally in the United States while she completes the
process for legal status.
Forcing Mrs. Ge to abandon her family during this time would only add
to the tragedy her 3-year-old granddaughter and 12-year-old grandson
were already experiencing. Allowing Mrs. Ge to stay in the country
would give the children a living link to their mother and to their
mother's culture, something they would be denied forever if their
grandmother is deported.
With the passage of the Family Immigration Sponsor Act, authored by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), Mrs. Ge can stay in
America and take care of her daughter's children while she completes
the immigration process. Then she can keep her promise to her daughter.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Family
Immigration Sponsor Act to help relieve some of the pain that families
like Mrs. Ge's have endured.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa).
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1515
Madam Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1892. I, too, have at
least one of my constituents who has the same problem. Myrna Gabiola
has tried, so far in vain, to take over the sponsorship of her two
brothers.
But this is not to say that there are not one, two, or three thousand
separate occurrences right now in America. This, like many of the
problems dealt with her in the House, needs in fact good legislation so
that they do not fall to the desk of individual Congressmen and
Congresswomen in the future.
Good government is dependent upon good and consistent rules of the
road that allow for the immigration process to be done under our laws,
but under common sense. I believe that the reason this was such a
bipartisan effort, and the reason that I am very hopeful it will pass
here today, is that we took the time to realize that no organization,
except perhaps a Federal Government, would in fact allow the loss of a
loved one to turn into a ``go back to go and start over.''
I believe that this type of reform, and others to come on a
bipartisan basis, are the best way to signal to the people of the
world, the tens or hundreds of millions who would like to come here,
that they are better off getting in line, playing by the rules, waiting
their turn, than coming here illegally.
These kinds of reforms make the process fairer and more likely to be
obeyed by those who wish to come to our country. Most of all, it is
fairer for those citizens of our country who do in fact want to be
repatriated with their loved ones from abroad.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who has been a
leader on family unification and providing for opportunities for
immigrants to access legalization.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the passage of H.R. 1892,
the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.
I wish to thank the Committee on the Judiciary for reporting this
important bill, especially the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and
acknowledge the sterling leadership of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert) for introducing this bill, which will help many grieving
families where the petitioners die before the family member is able to
gain immigration status.
I have had several of these cases over the years, and have had to
transmit the sad news to the families who have been waiting sometimes
more than 10 years before the parent petitioner died, and the petition
was then, upon his death, deemed expired also.
They were told that their only option was to have another family
member file a new petition and perhaps wait another 10 years. This is a
tearful message to transmit to any loved one.
Under current law, death of the parent petitioner forfeits the
priority date established by the deceased parent. The new petition
would have a new priority date, creating a tragic outcome for family
members who have already waited more than 10 years for their number to
be called.
This bill provides a compassionate outcome. The current law allows
the Attorney General to offer a humanitarian reprieve, but he could not
because the affidavit of support was deemed void upon the death of the
petitioner. This bill allows the voided affidavit of support of the
deceased to be substituted by another affidavit submitted by a close
family member. It is a commonsense kind of solution to a very tragic
personal problem.
This bill offers an avenue of relief for many grieving families who
continue their petitions for loved ones, even under the devastating
conditions today that they have to wait another 10 years. I hope that
this bill will pass and will become law, and will provide the kind of
relief that these families have been waiting so long to have.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), who
is
[[Page H4398]]
well aware of these issues. Having visited his district, I know of his
leadership on the issues of family reunification.
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I just want to enter into the Congressional
Record my thanks for the leadership of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The reason I rise on this issue, Madam Speaker, is because just this
past week I was visited by a constituent who is a Russian immigrant. He
came to this country as a refugee. He was trying to reunite his family,
his adult son and his family, and it turns out that he had a change of
categories in Russia. Because of that, he lost his standing as a
refugee and became an immigrant applicant. That made him go to the end
of the line.
The reason the father came to me is because he exhausted all his
administrative remedy and all he had left was hope, the hope that he
may live long enough that his son may be with him in this country as a
legal immigrant. But then he would have to wait 4 to 6 years. He is an
elderly person.
He asked me if there was any way to change this ruling so that he
would be allowed to see his son who has been in Russia for all these
years. I had no answer for him because the rules are the rules. He
wanted to follow them, but he wonders if there is a way we could
shorten that.
This bill may not give him much hope in the sense that he may not
live long enough, but it will give him hope that his son may enter into
this country under his petition currently, and that if he does pass
away, he will at least have the satisfaction that his petition will
remain current.
So to that end, I rise to support this with all my emotion, all my
support, for this family who face this possibility, and I have seen
this, but with the hope that the family will ultimately be reunified.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by simply saying we have heard the number
of tragic stories that this legislation will cure. Again, I thank the
author of the legislation, and I appreciate the bipartisan effort in
bringing it to the floor of the House so we may cure the tragedies that
have impacted families and reunite the families.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1892.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1892,
the Family Sponsor Immigration Act, and urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this worthwhile legislation.
Madam Speaker, many Americans share a very serious concern that our
immigration laws can be abused by those who do not respect the legal
process. However, there are countless individuals who abide by the law
and deserve a fair and just process. The Family Sponsor Immigration Act
provides that fairness to those who have followed the letter of the law
in seeking legal naturalization.
This important legislation corrects an unfair loophole in the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996. Currently, an immigrant
applying for permanent resident status must have a single family member
sponsor them. If the sponsor dies before the application is reviewed by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the applicant is forced to
find another sponsor and begin the naturalization process over again.
In effect, they are kicked to the back of the line due to the
circumstances beyond their control.
The Family Sponsor Immigration Act allows another qualified immediate
family member to take up the role of financial sponsor from a deceased
sponsor without interrupting the naturalization process. By correcting
this injustice suffered by many immigrants who followed the legal
process, we can ensure fairness in our immigration system.
This bill in no way allows unqualified applicants or unqualified
sponsors to abuse the system. There is also no impact on the number of
immigrants entering the naturalization process. Family unity is a
priority in our immigration policy, and this bill will promote that
goal. By providing this commonsense correction to the naturalization
process, we can ensure fairness and compassion for law-abiding
individuals.
I encourage my colleagues to support this effort. Let us support
vigorously H.R. 1892.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
support the passage of the Family Sponsor Immigration Act, introduced
by my good friend and neighbor, Ken Calvert. This legislation will help
us avert family tragedies that now happen all too often because of our
overworked immigration system.
Jamie Clarino and his family are an example of the terrible results
of how our system now works. Mr. Clarino, a Filipino native, fought
with the United States Army in World War II and won his American
citizenship through his military service.
In 1988, Mr. Clarino petitioned to sponsor his four adult children
for legal immigration to the United States. Unfortunately, far more
people would like to come to our country from the Philippines than we
can accept in any year. In fact, the backlog is so large from the
Philippines that it took 12 years--until the year 2000--for Mr.
Clarino's children to be certified to begin the immigration process.
Their documents were found in order. They were scheduled for an
interview with our consular officials in Manila that would complete the
process. They would soon be able to join their U.S. citizen father in
his home for the past dozen years.
And then tragedy struck: Mr. Clarino died just before the interviews
were to take place. He could not sign the affidavit of support required
at the time of the interviews. And under our current law, these
children of this man who fought for America in World War II must now
begin the process all over again with a new sponsor.
Without this legislation, the Clarino family will be forced to wait
perhaps a dozen more years for the chance to immigrate. As you can
imagine, this means the dream of their father--that his family come to
his adopted homeland--will probably never become reality. A sister who
is a lawful permanent resident, who could easily take over as sponsor
for her siblings, will probably never get the chance.
Madam Speaker, I believe we must stop our system from adding to the
tragedy of families like the Clarinos, who lose a loved one and at the
same time have their hopes of coming to America dashed. My friend Ken
Calvert's bill will allow these families to continue their quest under
a new sponsor, without losing their place in line. It does not grant
special favors; it merely closes a loophole to help those families who
are playing by the rules to gain legal immigration to our nation.
I strongly support H.R. 1892 and urge its passage.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1892, the
``Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.'' I thank Congressman Ken
Calvert, author of this bill, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Gekas,
and the Immigration Subcommittee staff for their leadership and
assistance on this bill. This bill will correct the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) to allow another family member to become a
sponsor of an applicant by signing an affidavit of support if the
original sponsor has died.
Current INS regulation, set up by the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), allows sponsors to sign
an affidavit of support to transfer sponsorship of an applicant.
Unfortunately, if a sponsor dies without signing an affidavit of
support, the applicant must start the long process over again. Due to
the immense number of applicants filing for permanent residency, the
application process for the INS can take more than a decade.
I first became aware of this problem in the IIRAIRA of 1996 when my
district office told me of a constituent, Myrna Gabiola, who wanted to
sponsor her two brothers after her father passed away. The family was
so focused on the health of the father that they did not realize that
the father had to sign an affidavit of support allowing another family
member to take over the application while he was still alive. There was
no indication of a problem until Renan and Ben Patao had interviews and
did not have the required affidavit of support. They were subsequently
denied because their father had passed away before the interviews took
place.
The Gabiola family waited over sixteen years to be granted an
interview for permanent residency but were then sent to the back of the
line to begin the process over again. I urged my staff to explore every
possible avenue to assist Ms. Gabiola through the administrative
process, but upon further exploration,
[[Page H4399]]
there was none. I contemplated a private bill, but after discussing the
possibilities with the Immigration Subcommittee staff for the Judiciary
Committee, they revealed that Congressman Ken Calvert had draft
legislation to correct a similar situation. After talking with
Congressman Calvert, he explained that he had a constituent in a
similar situation and wanted to bring forth legislation as soon as
possible.
After being introduced on May 17th of this year, this bill passed the
Judiciary Committee's Immigration subcommittee and the full committee
by voice vote. H.R. 1892 has received tremendous bi-partisan support
from Members and the INS, and is supported by the White House. This
bill will keep families together and help avoid the possibility of
having two tragedies stemming from one unfortunate event.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1892, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
|
Attorneys
Stumble It! | 
Add to del.icio.us | 
Digg this!