The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the in the House section section on pages H8725-H8728 on Dec. 2.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2021, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise a very proud, liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid. I am proud to say that, today, I will address the question of comprehensive immigration reform.
But before moving into this question of comprehensive immigration reform, I thank those who make it possible for me to have these opportunities to speak. I thank the Speaker of the House. I thank all the persons who are in leadership. I am grateful for the opportunity because this is a means by which messages can be made known to the masses. Many of the masses would not receive these messages but for what they hear from the floor of the House of Representatives.
I am honored to represent the Ninth Congressional District in Texas, and I am honored to thank those who allowed me to serve previously and who are allowing me to serve for an additional 2 years in the Congress of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, immigration reform is exceedingly important for many reasons. I will speak to one reason that is exceedingly important today, but I in no way want people to conclude that I am not concerned about what is happening at the border, that I am not concerned about ingress and egress into the country.
I wouldn't want people to think that I don't believe we need to know who is coming into the country, who is leaving the country. All of these things are important. I am concerned about them. But I am also concerned about them in a comprehensive way. I don't believe that we should try to do a patchwork fix of what is happening with immigration.
I think that we look at it from a holistic approach, and if we do, we will have an immigration bill that we can be proud of, that can deal with many of the nuances that are not brought to the attention of the public with any degree of regularity.
We tend to focus more on the border than on other aspects of immigration reform. Today, I will focus on an aspect of it that is somewhat different from the border itself and people who find themselves crossing the border for many reasons--many with good reasons, I might add.
Today, I would like to talk about Mr. Jaime Avalos Rosales. Mr. Jaime Avalos Rosales was born on November 25, 1994, some 28 years ago, in Oaxaca, Mexico.
Mr. Avalos was brought to this country as a baby. He was about 1 year of age at the time that he was brought into the country.
He has lived in this country for more than a quarter of a century. He is a graduate of a high school in this country, in Houston, Texas, Bellaire High School. He worked in Houston, Texas.
Mr. Avalos married an American-born woman and has a son. His wife, Yariana Martinez, and he have a young son, Noah Blake Avalos. This beautiful young baby is currently with his mother in Houston, Texas.
Mr. Avalos has been banned from the country and is in Juarez, Mexico, banned from the country for a period of 10 years.
This is why I rise today to give some intelligence on what has happened to cause Mr. Avalos to find himself in this predicament of being banned from the country for a period of 10 years.
Mr. Avalos, living in this country as a DACA recipient, working, not having committed a crime, decided that it would be appropriate to become a lawful citizen in the country. He was here undocumented. He wanted to do what was right for himself, but, more importantly, for his baby, Noah, and his wife.
He and his wife conferred, and they concluded, after having conferred with persons who were supposed to know, that he should return to Mexico, to Juarez, to the consulate there, and that he would apply for his visa to return to this country. Go to Mexico, Juarez, and apply for a visa to return to this country lawfully.
By the way, he made an appointment to go to Juarez, Mexico. He made an appointment to go there to the consulate. This is the way it is done. You make an appointment; you go there; you make your application to return lawfully into the country as a person with a visa. He did this.
He had no reason to leave the country other than to do this. He loves this country. He has been a hardworking person. Moralistically speaking, he is an American, but he does not have the documentation that would make him an American in the eyes of the laws of this country.
So, he leaves this country, leaves his wife, leaves his baby, goes to Juarez, and makes application.
Upon making application, it is discovered that Mr. Avalos was brought to Mexico at the age of 7 from the United States to Mexico for a purpose of having his birth properly registered in Mexico. So, he leaves the United States, not of his own volition, but in the arms of his mother who takes him to Mexico to register his birth.
Upon registering his birth, he comes back to this country. He has been in this country for decades, more than a quarter of a century.
Upon going to Juarez to register, they discover that he was brought to Mexico for this purpose, one time, leaving the country, going to Mexico to have his birth registered.
There is a law on our books indicating that if you are in this country for more than 365 days, and if you leave after more than 365 days, you cannot return for a period of 10 years.
That is the ban that Mr. Avalos finds himself having to suffer from.
He left, but he left in the arms of his mother. He left as a 7-year-
old child. In fact, he was taken out of the country. This was not something that he did of his own volition. He has no recollection of having done it. Having no recollection of it, he didn't call it to anyone's attention because he, quite frankly, didn't recall the circumstance having occurred.
But having done this, the consulate and the officials there, whom I visited with, concluded that he was subject to this 10-year ban because he came back at the age of 7 to have his birth registered. This, literally, is why he is banned from the country.
I, along with staff members, his wife, and his lawyer, Attorney Salem, we went to Mexico to visit Mr. Avalos.
He is my constituent. I do this. He is not the first constituent that I have had to go to Mexico to visit. We had a Mr. Escobar who was in El Salvador. I went there. I saw him. We eventually brought him home.
My intentionality is to bring Mr. Avalos home. It may not happen as soon as I would like, but we will bring Mr. Avalos home. This is an injustice.
I took staff, his wife, baby Noah, and his lawyer to Mexico. We went there to Juarez, and we met with him extensively.
I had an opportunity to see him interact with baby Noah. I saw tears well in his eyes as he talked about how much he loved his son, how he misses his son, and how he doesn't want his son to grow up without his father being in his life.
{time} 1130
It was a very touching and moving moment to see this occur. This man who loves his child. The child's mother was there with us at the time. Attorney Salem was there. We had a reporter there as well.
This is a very heart-wrenching circumstance to have to negotiate. He wants to return home. He is living there. Fortunately, he has a relative, and he is living there with a relative. He does not venture far from the place where he is staying.
In Mexico, Mr. Avalos is a stranger. In Mexico, Mr. Avalos is viewed as an outsider, especially if it is known that he is barred from coming back to this country. Mr. Avalos is concerned about his safety, as am I, as is the case with his wife. We are all concerned about his safety. He is very careful not to go very far away from where he lives, and when he does, he is usually accompanied by some other person who is familiar with the environment, who can help him to be assured that he will return home safely.
Concern for his safety is something that I would call to everyone's attention, and I think this in and of itself is reason for us to want to make sure that we bring him home. But aside from this, Mr. Avalos has a home in Houston, a home that he is purchasing. As I have indicated, he is hardworking; productive; buying a home; has an American-born wife; an American-born child.
So he wants to return to his home and his child. He wants to give that child the opportunity to have the presence of a father in his life, throughout his childhood and into his adulthood. He would like to be there when his child takes his first step. The child is just learning to speak and learning to say ``daddy.''
I was there when the child was reaching for his father and trying his best to utter the words ``daddy.''
He wants to enjoy the things that a father can enjoy with a son: To be there on the first day of school; to participate in activities with his son. He is a good and decent person who has done nothing wrong other than what we perceive to be wrong, and that is having been taken out of the country at the age of 7 by his mother to register his birth.
It is my belief that the law ought to have some consideration for persons who are taken out of the country, as opposed to persons who leave the country.
Many persons will leave the country. They are persons who have the intentionality of leaving, and the law should apply to them. But a child at the age of 7, who has no recollection of it, who was taken out of the country, in my opinion, there ought to be some exception for this person: Mr. Avalos.
I believe we should try our best to get him returned to this country, so there are several things that we are doing.
We have two pieces of legislation that we have filed. One piece of legislation would deal with Mr. Avalos and his circumstance. We believe that his is a special circumstance, and the law provides for this type of legislation. Another piece would deal with persons who are similarly situated.
We believe that if there are such persons--and there are, I am told by others who should know--we want to make sure we cover them as well: Young people, babies, children who are removed from the country by parents who don't leave of their own volition. We want to make sure that we capture them in the law because this type of injustice should not go unnoticed and should be corrected.
We also believe that Mr. Avalos is a candidate for what we call humanitarian parole. I believe firmly that if he is granted humanitarian parole, he will return to our country, be a law-abiding person and who will be a credit to our society; will make America a better place by being here; who will be a great father to his son Noah, and will be a good husband to his wife, Yariana.
This can be accomplished, and we are making every effort to do so, through the good offices of Secretary Mayorkas, the good offices of Homeland Security. We believe that this can be accomplished through USCIS and he will have the opportunity to return home.
All of these things are going to take time. I am a patient person, but I believe that the longer he is away from his son, the longer this becomes an injustice and the longer this becomes a circumstance where justice is being denied.
So we are going to push for all of these things to try to bring Mr. Avalos back to this country, and we would like to do it as timely as we possibly can because one can see that his son misses him. If you are in the company of Mr. Avalos, he and his son, then you would see immediately that there is a bond between them.
I mention this case because this is the type of case--and there are many others--but this is the type of case that hardly makes the news. It is not a part of what we talk about when we talk about immigration and the need to have immigration reform, but this is why immigration reform has to be comprehensive because there are nuances in the law that have to be addressed that are not making the news on some sort of daily basis or with any degree of regularity.
I believe that we have to take a holistic approach to immigration reform; that it has to be comprehensive. I don't think that we can just conclude that by dealing with the border alone.
And there are many ways to deal with the border, but I will use an example that is cited quite regularly, and that is, deal with the border and construct the wall. A wall high enough to keep people from going over it, a wall deep enough to keep people from tunneling under it.
If such a thing can be done, this is what I believe many people would propose, but I do know that there are circumstances where people find a way over high walls and tunnel under low walls.
But let's assume this can be accomplished in a positive way. There are still circumstances, however, where the gunrunners will still get their guns over the walls. They are using drones now to get guns over walls, and those guns are the ones that are being used to terrorize people, causing many people to want to come to this country.
Assume that we can prevent the guns from coming over the wall, people from going over the wall and under the wall, I don't think that resolves the question of immigration reform. That is an aspect of immigration reform; that is not total immigration reform.
We have people who are living in this country who are doing us no harm, who came here with the best of intentions. They have to be addressed. There must be a remedy for all of this before we can take up some aspect of this.
Here is what I believe would happen if we only addressed the wall. If we only addressed the wall, I believe that the opportunity to deal with those who are living in the shadows, those who live in fear of being stopped when they are out and being taken away from families that they have in this country, are those who are in the circumstance of Mr. Avalos, they would not have their petitions, their proper redress accorded them.
I believe that we have to have a holistic approach. Let's let those who want to address the wall, let's do this: Let's let them address the wall. And let those of us who would like to have other things a part of comprehensive immigration reform, let's add these things.
Let's have one bill that includes the things that all people believe to be necessary to have a border that they believe to be secure, and people addressed in this country that will understand that they no longer have to live on the run or in the shadows, as we say, or live in fear of being deported and taken away from their families. I think this holistic approach can be accomplished.
I am available to talk to anybody who wants to talk about it. I am not in any way fearful of talking to you about the wall that you would like to build. I will talk to you about it, but let's talk about all aspects of immigration reform when we do this.
I am a person who has been to the border on many occasions. I have seen what is happening at the border. But I didn't leave the border thinking that I was an expert simply because I saw people entering the country in ways that are unfavorable in the eyes of many.
I didn't leave assuming I was an expert. As a matter of fact, just recently, over the Thanksgiving holidays, I went on the other side of the border, to the consulate in Juarez and I talked to the members of that consulate.
It is amazing what one can learn by simply going to the other side of the border and talking to the people who also have a hand in helping us to secure the border. They are with the State Department. They deal with things in a diplomatic way, but they, too, have a hand in this. And one would be wise to take some opportunity to go there and talk to them.
The Consul General in Juarez, Mexico, is very receptive. He listens and he gives you thoughtful information, in my opinion. I think it would benefit persons who go to the border to simply just go over to the other side. And I am not saying that there are not others who haven't done it, but a good many haven't. But just go over to the other side to the consulate and talk to the people who see these problems and have some thoughts as to some of the remedies that might be beneficial to us. I have done this.
So I have seen the border from both sides. I have seen the border from the perch of one who is making a concerted, conscientious effort to help people who are trapped on the other side of the border. I have actually been there to visit with them. I have been to El Salvador to visit with the constituent, brought that constituent home--didn't come home as soon as I wanted, but we did get it done. We will bring Mr. Avalos home as well, just as we brought Mr. Escobar home.
But this is an important circumstance that highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform. I assure you that this is the methodology by which this can be resolved for both sides of the aisle, all parties concerned. I'm not sure anybody is going to get everything they want. I probably would not, using such a process, but we will do what the American people would have us do, and that is, negotiate, develop legislation. Let the legislation matriculate, take votes, come to a conclusion. That is the way the House should function as well as the Senate, I might add.
I would have us do this, but we can't do it if the only solution proposed is a wall, or if the only solution proposed is to have something done about the persons who are here living in the shadows. Either of those without the other would not be the comprehensive immigration reform that we need. This is what I support.
I believe that if we negotiate as opposed to require what I would call capitulation as opposed to negotiation. Negotiation involves give-
and-take. Capitulation involves one way or no way at all. That way is an unacceptable way of doing business. Everybody is going to have to give something. Hopefully, everybody will get something.
I don't believe that we should allow the perfect when it comes to this. Someone who believes that, Hey, I have the perfect solution and it is either this or nothing. I don't believe we should allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. But I do believe that we should allow right to be the enemy of wrong.
It is just wrong for us to have someone in the circumstance that Mr. Avalos finds himself in. It is wrong to allow this to exist. And I believe that I have a right to do the righteous thing, and that is to try my best to extricate him from this most enigmatic circumstance.
{time} 1145
I plan to do all that I can in the future. I plan to go back if I need to--and I believe that I will--to see Mr. Avalos again. I will do all that I can to help his family get back to see the father of baby Noah and the husband of Yariana. I plan to do this.
I think that I am not a live-and-let-live guy, meaning you do what you can to make your way through the world, and I will stay out of your way. Let me do what I can to make my way through the world, and you stay out of my way.
That is not my philosophy. My philosophy is one of live and help live. Live and help live. If I had the resources and the means of helping some person who is in harm's way, I believe that I ought to do that. I ought to help that person who is in harm's way. There are many people in this country who left places south of the border because they were in harm's way only to come here and have to live in the shadows. I want to get them out of the shadows. Mr. Avalos wanted to extricate himself from the shadows, which is why he left.
To recap quickly: He was in this country and was brought here by his mother at the age of 1 year. His mother decided at the age of 7 that she was taking him back to register his birth; and she did so. He then continued to live here abiding the law. He married an American woman, has an American child, graduated from high school in this country, and purchased a home. Moralistically he is an American. He and his wife jointly decide to go back to Mexico as the law allows, go back to Mexico, and make an appointment.
He didn't go under the cover of darkness. This was not something done in a stealthy fashion. He went back to Mexico to legitimize himself in the eyes of our laws. He had no other reason to leave.
He was a DACA recipient. He could easily have stayed here for many, many, many more years as a DACA recipient and been a good father and husband. But he wanted to do the right thing. In his effort to do the right thing, he finds himself now entrapped. He finds himself now in Mexico banned for 10 years because of the law.
I will cite the law for those who may want to have the benefit of knowing what law it is that I speak of. The law is Immigration and Nationality Act, and it is 212(a)(9)(C)(i). This piece of law, this legislation, indicates that if you have been in this country for more than 365 days and if you leave, if you have been here more than 365 days, then you are undocumented. You leave, you are banned for 10 years.
He didn't leave. He was taken out of the country, and but for that circumstance, he would still be here; and, in my opinion, he would have received his visa from the consulate in Mexico and he would return to the country.
Now, if I have got colleagues who have differences of opinion with me, I am available to discuss those differences with colleagues. I am, as I have indicated, a liberated Democrat. I have many friends who are very conservative, persons who are probably what many people would assume that I don't associate with, but I do. I am not a guy who disassociates because a person happens to have a label that is different from mine. If I did this, then I would have very few friends probably.
So I have friends who are very conservative. I invite my very conservative friends who would like to have this discussion with me. I am available. I answer my phone. Please give me a call. Come by my office. I will come by your office.
But these issues have to be addressed. I am all for addressing them in a comprehensive fashion such that we take care of the persons who are caught up in the nuances of the law such as is the case with Mr. Jaime Avalos.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great country. I love my country. I wear a necktie that should give some indication that it means something to me to be an American. It means something to me. I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I salute the flag, and I sing the National Anthem.
But I also believe that I ought to defend those who do not salute the flag and who do not sing the National Anthem. I believe that that is what makes America great; the right to say that I disagree, the right to protest, and a Constitution that makes it lawful for us to have disagreements. I believe in this Constitution. I believe that we can get things done if we would but only exercise our right to talk to each other.
Let's talk. Let's try as best as we can to make this country the country that all of us would like to see it be through our various different eyes, through the different perches that we all have. We all have different ideas as to what the ideal circumstance is. I think that we can do this by simply deciding to talk to each other about these issues.
So let it be known far and wide that I stand ready to talk with anybody who is ready to have that conversation with me.
I thank you Madam Speaker Pelosi for your many years of service as the Speaker of the House. You have been the person who taught me to say Madam Speaker, as well as many others, I might add, because before you there was not a Madam Speaker. I appreciate the service that you have rendered. I thank you for the many opportunities that I have had to speak on the floor.
To Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader currently: I greatly appreciate the many things you have done, Mr. Hoyer, to help me with legislation. You have been a real friend to me. I won't forget many of the things that you have done to help my constituents and this country legislatively speaking. You have taken some tough positions, Mr. Hoyer, but history is going to reward you for those tough positions.
Mr. Clyburn, I admire you and thank you for staying on. Your wisdom is needed. You have seen things because you have lived longer. I haven't lived as long. I respect the wisdom that you accord me. I recently celebrated my 25th birthday for the third time. I respect you, Mr. Clyburn, and I appreciate the fact that you are staying on in a leadership position.
To those who have just acquired these new positions, I am going to do everything that I can to make your administration a success. I stand ready to work closely with you, as closely as you would have me work with you. I stand ready to do the things that can help you to achieve your goals.
I do believe that we have selected capable, competent, and qualified people who are ready to assume leadership in the next Congress--we are in the 117th now--in the 118th Congress, I believe they are ready. I believe Mr. Jeffries is ready. I believe that he has been seasoned properly and that he is ready to grow into this position.
So, dear brother--if I may be so bold as to say dear brother as opposed to Mr. Minority-Leader-to-be--dear brother, I want to see you do well as is the case with the rest of your leadership team. I look forward to serving you as we serve the people of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
