Date: 1986-10-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. � Mr. Chairman. the amendment offered by the Committee on Agriculture is designed to provide the protections of the fourth amendment to the Constitution to agricultural employers and employees. Since Hester v. United States (265 U.S. 57). the Supreme Court has reiterated. on numerous occasions. the doctrine that there is no constitutional protection against search and seizure in an open field. Immigration and Naturalization Service current policy treats agricultural lands as open fields. Consequently. there is now no requirement that INS enforcement officers obtain a search warrant prior to entering a farm or ranch. Thus. there is a double standard currently imposed on the business of agriculture that is not applicable to other types of businesses. The protections of the fourth amendment provide a basic right of people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Such constitutional protections are applicable to persons conducting businesses in office buildings and it is not apparent why persons conducting businesses in fields are any less deserving of this basic constitutional benefit. The committee amendment merely .requires that an INS enforcement officer.-may not enter an outdoor agricultural operation for the purpose of questioning an alien without the consent of the owner or without a search warrant. Let me point out specifically what the amendment does not do: It does not require a warrant in other cases relating to the arrest of an alien who appears to be in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. it does not address warrantless entry to apprehend those workers committing a felony. nor would the committee amendment prevent INS officers from entering property within 25 miles of our national borders. This amendment is particularly important to the agricultural community because it will ensure that. in the future. unlike the past. farming operations will not be disrupted by broadscale. random raids. Work stoppages are very costly to the farmer. especially when crops need harvesting in a timely manner. Additionally. the Committee on Agriculture has learned of numerous cases in which agricultural employers and employees have been unduly harassed by INS enforcers to the extent that some workers and. in some instances their children. have had their lives jeopardized. Based on data available to the U.S. Department of Labor. it is estimated that most of the 2 to 5 million undocumented aliens in this country are in the labor market. Since. according to the Attorney General. only 15 percent of these aliens work in agriculture. it is obvious a majority of these aliens are employed in other businesses. Yet. agriculture is receiving the lions share of INS raids. For example. of the 110.000 undocumented workers apprehended by the INS last year. 72 percent were employed in agriculture. It is clear to the committee that farmers and ranchers and their employees are receiving a disproportionate share .of INS scrutiny and that INS is focusing its search and seizure activities in a business which is the easiest to access. the one business that requires no search warrant. Two provisions of H.R. 3810 should deter hiring of undocumented aliens. H.R. 3810 makes it unlawful for any person or entity. including a farmer. to hire an unauthorized alien. Stiff penalties are imposed for each alien hired in violation of the act. Furthermore. the employer sanctions provisions of H.R. 3810 require that employers. including farmers. complete certain paperwork requirements verifying that their employees are eligible to work in the United States. Employers. including farmers. are subjected to severe penalties for each individual involved if they violate this section of the bill. Employers. including farmers. are required to retain these verification forms which are to be made available to the INS for such period as the Attorney General specifies in regulations. . The Conimittee on Agriculture feels very strongly that these provisions. coupled with the bills authorized increase in the border patrol and other INS enforcement activities to prevent the illegal entry of illegal aliens into the United States. eliminates the need for warrantless entry on agricultural lands in the future. The employer sanctions provisions were designed to ensure that employe rs of all businesses be treated equally if they employ undocumented workers. Likewise. the Committee on Agriculture amendment would treat equally the INS search warrant requirement for the business of agriculture as well as all other types of businesses. The House has previously indicated its desire to equate the search warrant provisions to all businesses. On June 13. 1984. the House. In considering H.R. 1510. upheld a Judiciary Committee amendment restricting warrantless entry on agricultural lands. The vote to strike that amendment was rejected by a substantial margin of 133 to 285. Further. the Committee on Agriculture amendment is identical to that approved by the HouseSenate conferees in the last Congress. and it is also identical to that contained in H.R. 3810 as introduced by Chairman RODINO of the House Judiciary Committee. The amendment is supported by farm. civil liberties. and other organizations including the National Council of Churches. I strongly urge its support by the House. Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky . the chairman of the subcommittee.