 HOUSE MEMBER GIVES SPEECH STRONGLY OPPOSING 30-DAY TOURIST LIMIT
Last week, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) spoke before the House, expressing his opposition to the recently announced INS regulations that would limit stays in the US for tourists to 30 days. While we seldom reprint such statements in their entirety, Rep. Pallone’s words are an excellent summary of many of the reasons such a regulations would be seriously misguided.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to express my opposition to a proposal put forward by INS Commissioner James Ziglar several weeks ago. The Immigration and Naturalization Service proposal would limit foreigners to visiting the United States for only 30 days. The current policy on visitor visas allows a stay in the United States for at least 6 months. Mr. Speaker, this new proposal severely undermines the family structure of U.S. residents who have loved ones living in a foreign country; and on another note, the new proposal severely jeopardizes an important segment of the U.S. economy that depends on foreign tourists.
The driving force behind the INS proposal is the attempt to improve our homeland security and to prevent terrorists from entering our country. Although I believe that INS reform is badly needed to better address our homeland security concerns, I am completely convinced that limiting visitor visas to 30 days will do nothing to better protect us from terrorists, and will in fact only place severe, undue burdens on the lawful, decent individuals abroad who come to visit the United States.
I would like to expand on exactly who would feel the effects of this proposal. It is the grandmother or grandfather who lives in another country and chooses to come to the United States to spend time with their family that has settled here. Is 30 days enough time to reunite a family? Is 30 days enough time, if thousands of dollars and over 24 hours have been spent traveling to the United States? Is 30 days enough time to spend with a newborn grandchild, or a grandchild getting married? I do not think so.
Mr. Speaker, over 70,000 people in the United States have signed a petition against this proposal in the last 10 days or so. Interestingly enough, the INS has not thought so, or has not agreed with this proposal for the past 10 years. In fact, they have suggested the opposite.
The INS is arbitrarily changing this law in response to September 11, but the change will be ineffectual in preventing further terrorism. In fact, there are two detrimental effects that I foresee with this proposal.
First, if visitors are provided only a 30-day visa, it is likely that upon entrance to the United States, these visitors will apply for a visa extension. This type of extra paperwork is the exact reason why the INS extended the visitor's visa to 6 months, so tourists could accomplish the purpose of their visit, leave the United States within the given time here, and not further overload the INS. This will not be the case if the 30-day limit is implemented.
Mr. Speaker, the second reason, I think, which is so important, is that we are all aware of the impact on the tourism industry in the United States after September 11. The airline industry and tourism industry would be drastically affected by the decrease in visits to the United States that would be a result of visitors finding that 30 days is not worth the great effort required to visit the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the INS has thought about this, but I think they need to reconsider. I urge the INS to reconsider their proposal. It will in no way fight terrorism, and only serves to trample on the legitimate visits from relatives with legitimate residents of the United States.
| 
