On the recordMay 17, 1993
That's a good question. I think there are two answers to that. One, frankly, is a practical one, and that is that the United States does not have the means at the present time to enforce its own immigration laws. And one of the things that I've asked the Attorney General to do is to conduct a nationwide search for the best person to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who can really make some changes there and then try to get more border patrol and more ability to enforce the immigration laws. One of the things that was in the jobs package that I proposed--the emergency jobs package that was voted down by the filibuster in the Senate--was money for several hundred more border patrol officers here in California. So we have to deal with that. The second reason is that the United States Government sets immigration policy but for as long as I can remember has left it up to the States to bear the burden of the immigration costs, or the localities, so that California, Texas, and Florida and, to a slightly lesser extent, New York pay huge bills for national decisions. So in spite of all the budgetary problems we have in this budget, we have recommended several hundred million more dollars to come into the State of California so that your local tax dollars will be freed up for education and for the other needs of the people in California. It is not fair the way you've been done by the National Government. And given our financial difficulties, we're doing as much as we can to change that. I've got to give a plug to a Californian, Leon Panetta, who's now the head of the Office of Management and Budget. He helped us to redraw the laws so that more of this money for medical care and other health-related and welfare-related costs of immigrants could be borne by the National Government, because it's the national policy. And so your tax dollars here can be freed up for urgent California needs for your own folks. Welfare Reform
Source
govinfo.gov
