Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - May 22, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was sharing with my colleagues before the leadership break a number of issues about the immigration bill. Perhaps it will cause some to think unless it is improved, it should not be passed. Some will be encouraged, hopefully, to support amendments that could make it better. To some, I am sure it will make no difference. They intend to vote for it, maybe, or against it, as it is today. But I am glad we will now have all week. The Democratic leader has changed his previously stated view that we would vote this week. We brought the bill up only last night. If it was written in formal bill language, it would be one of the longest pieces of legislation ever considered in the Senate, maybe the longest piece of legislation since I have been here, other than perhaps an omnibus bill, but not a legislative bill.

We need to be thinking about the basic principles that are important to immigration reform. That is what I wish to continue discussing. The Republican leader, MITCH MCCONNELL, said:

One thing's for sure, if this bill gives them any preferential treatment towards citizenship over people who came into the country in the proper way, that's a nonstarter.

I have made a number of points about some of the things that actually are in the bill that provide for a person who came into our country preferential treatment toward the process of being a citizen that are not given to somebody dutifully waiting outside the country to be called up when their time comes. I want to point that out in a number of ways.

For example, only illegal persons would be eligible for these Z visas, visas that would allow them to live and work here forever, as long as they are renewed every 4 years. That visa would not be available to anyone currently living in the United States who came here to work legally or someone who did not overstay their visa but went home when they were supposed to. So if you came here for a work visa and your work visa is 1 year, and you are complying with the law, and you don't want to go home at the end of your year, you still have to go home. But if a person broke into the country illegally and they don't want to go home, they are given the Z visa, they get to stay, and they get to apply for a green card that leads to citizenship. Even if they entered the country last December 31, getting past our National Guard, the new fences and the Border Patrol, and got into the country as late as last December, a single person with no skills, that person is eligible for the Z visa and could be here forever.

A Z visa plan is a better plan than the plan we had last year, I have to say, but it still has some real problems with it. Namely, it still leads to citizenship.

My colleagues say: Well, nothing is perfect. Yes, there are things in it I don't like, but we have to do something.

Well, why don't we fix things such as that? If it is not right, why should it be in the bill? We don't have to let the Z visa be a pathway to citizenship, it could just be renewable forever.

Well, they say, we can't touch anything that affects the core of the bill. All of us--the senators in the secret room--have agreed.

Who agreed? This group that met for several months with one another and outside groups, and they wrote up this bill and plopped it down on the floor last night. Until last night, we were still on last year's fatally flawed bill that should never, ever have become law. Although it passed this Senate, it never had a dog's chance of passing in the House. That is where we are, and I am concerned about that.

A third example of preferential treatment is Z visa holders get legal status 24 hours after they apply, even if their background checks aren't complete. The bill says ``No probationary benefits shall be issued to an alien until the alien has passed all appropriate background checks or the end of the next business day, whichever is sooner.'' Nobody else gets immigration status benefits if their background check is not complete. Fourth, visa holders are exempted from a long list of inadmissibility grounds, including fraud or misrepresentation to obtain an immigration benefit and false claims for U.S. citizenship, and their prior deportation or removal orders can be waived, even if they never left, if they can show extreme hardship to their illegal alien family members.

An illegal alien who applies to be a Z visa holder is exempted. That includes anyone that got here before January 1 of this year. They can walk in and they get a Z visa. They don't have to pass a background check to get the visa immediately--at the end of the next business day. Presumably, they will check pretty quickly. But what if we had hundreds and thousands of people showing up with convictions for crimes and that kind of thing that makes them ineligible, how are we going to find them? They will have the probationary z visa.

If they have participated in a scheme to obtain immigration benefits or have
falsely claimed with official documents to the U.S. Government that they are a citizen, this is a crime under Title 18, section 911, that does not bar them either. What would happen if an American citizen made a false claim to the Government? Title 18, section 1001, false claims to the Government is a Federal felony that can put you in jail for 2 years, 5 years. But if you made a false claim to be a citizen or some other benefit under immigration law and you are one of the people who came here illegally and not through a system, you get immunity from those cases, whereas a citizen does not. We have to be careful about what we do in legislation such as this. This is why amnesty deals are important. We should not be put in the position of ever having to do this. We said we would not do it again. After 1986, we said we were not going to ever do another amnesty again because it was so painful. It worked so poorly. All it did was encourage additional immigration, as those who opposed it in 1986 predicted.

It is very interesting. I looked back at the debates. You could see who was right and who was wrong. The people said: This is going to be a one-time thing. Don't worry about it. This will end the backlog and bring people out of the shadows, and we don't have to enforce the law on these people. Let them stay, and we will give them for one time amnesty. We won't do it again.

Others said: Wait a minute. This is a principle of importance. How can we say in the future we won't give amnesty if people come illegally, when we did this time? Doesn't this put us on the road to repeat amnesty in the future? Aren't we afraid it won't work?

What happened? After the 1986 bill, 3 million people claimed the benefits of amnesty. Twenty years later, we now have maybe 12 to 20 million that will be claiming amnesty. There are consequences to making these kinds of choices. That is a preference given to people who have come illegally over someone waiting outside the country to come legally.

Fifth, a Z visa holder will be able to get a green card through their own separate point system and without being subject to the regular annual numerical limits. This is a huge benefit to them. In other words, they will not have to compete with other persons around the world on a merit basis, as we are supposed to be moving to, but, in fact, they will have an inside track. They will not be in a line that has the standard numerical limit, instead they will have their own like, so that at most they will have to wait only 5 years for a green card after they are eligible for one.

That makes clear to me--I think it is clear to anyone--the way the bill is now written there is a preference given in quite a number of areas on the question of citizenship, as well as other questions, frankly, that they get benefits over persons who came here waiting to come legally or came locally.

In fact, another thing they have left out of the bill--and it was in last year's bill--they do not have to pay back taxes. So the illegal alien community that has been working here for half a dozen years--and we hear there are so many of them, and many of them have decent-paying jobs. I think that is true, quite a number do have decent-paying jobs and are supposed to be paying taxes. If they did not pay their taxes, they don't have to pay them as a condition for getting z visa amnesty. American citizens have not been exempted from paying their taxes for those same years. That is just true.

You may say: Well, you are just harping and complaining, SESSIONS. Well, I pay my taxes. Most Americans pay their taxes. If somebody has come here illegally and makes $50,000, $80,000 a year--some do--and they did not pay taxes, we are just going to wipe that tax debt out? I do not think so. It is not a principle, to me, that I could adhere to, instead it is one I would dispute.

So what about the chain migration question? Are we eliminating that? And what should we do?

Let me say it this way--and this is accurate, and there are other ways to look at it--it is accurate to say that instead of eliminating chain migration, which was one of the principles in the talking points that circulated around as this new bill was drafted, the bill actually escalates chain migration two to three times over the next 8 years. That is an indisputable fact.

Not only are the current chain migration numbers maintained--the 140,000 that was eliminated is now used to adjust backlogged chain migration applications.

They did eliminate chain migration. No new applications will be accepted. Let's go back and be fair about the bill. The bill eliminates chain migration in the future. That is an important thing. Chain migration means collateral relatives; it does not mean your wife or your child. They would get to come with you. If you are a citizen or a permanent resident, your wife and children get to come with you. It is the question of the brothers and sisters, adult children that perhaps are married and have their own families, or aging parents that are part of chain migration.

If a person comes, then you can bring your brother and sister. If your brother is married, the wife comes with your brother. If they have three children, those come. If she moves forward to a green card or citizenship, she can also bring in her relatives. Then the wife can bring in her brothers and sisters. So that is how this system works. It is unrelated to skills and the productivity of the person intending to come. It is unrelated, therefore, to the national interests of the United States. It is unconnected to them. It is their interest they are concerned about and not the national interest, which is to make sure the persons who come are honest, hard-working, decent people with skills and capabilities to be successful in America.

So how did all this work out in reality? Not only are the current chain migration numbers maintained--the 140,000 was eliminated, so to speak, but it will be applied during the 8-year period after the bill to provide more green cards, increase the numbers of green cards for family migration, most of which are for chain migration persons who are waiting to get green cards as a result of their applications over a period of time. So if a brother applies to come to the United States with a wife and child, because they have a brother here who is a citizen, they apply and they are put on a list. This is non-skill-based immigration. It is purely based on kinship. Those numbers have been set aside to allow the people who are backlogged to clear, and it is going to take 8 years, they estimate 8 years. As we look at the numbers, it looks as if it could well be longer than that. It looks as if the backlog will not be eliminated in 8 years but could be much more.

So what we will do then I am not able to say because we have not had a chance to read the bill sufficiently from last night. So I just would say we are concerned about that aspect of it. So the first 8 years we can expect, as we calculate it this way--hold your hat--in the first 8 years, there would be family-based green cards--not skill based--lots of them chain migration-based green cards--issued in numbers over 920,000 each year. That is almost a million each year who would come in under that program, unrelated to skill-based immigration that the bill purports to establish.

I will admit, after that 8 years, if the bill is unchanged--and who knows what would happen in that period--there would be a bigger shift to merit-based immigration and well over a million people will enter the country legally--probably closer to 2 million per year under this plan--whereas the current number of legal immigrants each year into America is about 1 million. So it is going to increase quite a bit the number of people entering the country with green cards, but it is not going to shift us to a merit-based system until at least 8 years go by. That is a serious defect, in my mind.

They say: Well, it is implemented for those who qualify. That is right. Out of a million, a million and a half, 2 million--closer to a million and a half to 2 million--who will be coming legally in the next 8 years, only 150,000 of those will enter based on the Canadian point system, merit-based system. That is not much. It is a disappointment to me that the hopes that were held out for a system like Canada's point-based system were not realized. I am disappointed in that.

I will read an example prepared by the Senate Republican Policy committee, which did a nice study on merit-based permanent immigration. It is a look at Canada's point system.

Remember now, there are a number of categories of issues we will deal with. One is a temporary worker program. We are going to have two votes on that, I understand, this afternoon. I intend to support Senator Bingaman's amendment, although I have not seen it. But based on what I know about it, it would reduce the number of people who would come in under the temporary worker program from 400,000 to 200,000.

Now, this is all, in my view--I do not want to be too cynical--a little bit of a put-up job. I talked to administration officials earlier in the year, and I asked: Well, how many would be expected to enter under the temporary worker program? They said: Well, about 200,000.

So the bill comes out, and it is 400,000 per year, and you stay for 2 years. There is an escalator clause in it that could take the cap to 600,000. So under the bill that was plopped in last night, you would have 400,000 the first year--and it could be fifteen percent more than that with the escalator clause--plus 400,000-plus the second year. Now, at that point, in the second year of the new program, you have about 900,000 temporary workers here competing for jobs in our economy--at one time, almost a million. That is a big number. That is bigger than I think anybody ever intended.

So we are going to have an amendment this afternoon, and it is going to allow the Senators to impact the agreement, and they are going to bring those numbers down, and we are all going to pat ourselves on the back, I guess, and go back to our working people in our communities and union people and say: See, we knocked that business bill down to a rational number that is much better. Now we may be able to vote for the bill. But I have to tell you, that was the number I was told some months ago was the appropriate number by an official in the Bush administration who certainly is not timid about asking for temporary workers in America.

So I am inclined to support the Bingaman amendment. I do, however, have concerns about the Dorgan amendment because it strikes me that a good temporary worker program is good for America; it just needs to work, it just needs to be effective. I can tell you one good example. A portion of my State and a large portion of Louisiana and Mississippi were devastated by Hurricane Katrina. There is tremendous construction work there. A lot of people moved out of the neighborhoods and no longer live or even work there. So immigrant labor in numbers larger than you would normally expect to be needed were needed and were helpful and remain helpful. So a good system of temporary workers would consider those kinds of things because those workers in New Orleans, right now, are not likely to be putting Americans out of work or even pulling their wages down any noticeable degree.

I think a temporary worker program is good. I am not inclined to vote for the Dorgan amendment, as I understand it at this moment. But we do need to work to examine the temporary worker program that is in this bill because it still has defects.

Now, let's take an example of a would-be seeker of permanent residence as they apply to Canada according to the RPC paper. This is a made-up example of how the system works.

Stella, an individual from Cyprus, desires to reside permanently in Canada. She has a master's degree in computer science. For that, she would get 25 points. She has a job offer from Nortel. That would give her 10 points. She has 3 years of paid work experience in her home country. Canada gives her 19 points for that. She is 23 years old, and because she is younger and Canada prefers younger people--unfortunately, for some of us, she is younger--she gets extra points for being younger, an extra 10 points. She has a moderate to good proficiency in English. She gets 10 points for that. So she has a total of 74 points. She has met the minimum of points required to apply for permanent residency in Canada. But she previously studied in Canada, and that gives her another 7 points. And the fact that her sister resides in Toronto gives her another 5 points--for a total of 86 points.

She can apply to be a permanent resident at the Canadian Embassy in Cyprus and would be eligible promptly--immediately. So that is the way the system works in Canada. It is something that I think without doubt should be a part of our immigration reform.

So we are a nation of immigrants. We are at a point in our history in which the influx of immigrants into America is as high as it has ever been. Once, I believe, in our country's history we peaked at this high of an immigration rate, but along came the Depression and World War II and we almost stopped immigration entirely. We went to very low immigration rates. Then we have gone back into a new cycle of very strong immigration.

It looks as if there is not any likelihood that this Nation will stop this current rate and go back to zero. Most of us believe immigration, properly handled, is good for America, but we do have to consider the actual numbers. The numbers cannot be too great, or it takes jobs from Americans and can, in fact, create cultural problems that wouldn't occur if it was a little slower. So we have a situation where we would like to see immigration continue.

Now, if we are going to maintain a very high level of immigration at historic highs for America, it only makes good sense and common sense, it seems to me, that we would look around the world and we would give points like Canada does to the persons who are most likely to be happy and prosperous in our country, who are most likely to not go on welfare, most likely to have good jobs and pay taxes, who will help us balance the budget rather than causing a drain on the budget, and in fact attract people who really desire to be an American and who want to be a part of our society and deeply desire to make a permanent move, and who want to create a new allegiance from their prior country to their new home in the United States. That was the ideal of American immigration, and I certainly think that remains our ideal today. We ought to keep that in mind as we go forward.

Doing the right thing, creating the right number in the right categories with the right skill sets, while at the same time having a legal system that really works, is within our grasp.

Forgive me if I am disappointed that the framework which I thought had so much great potential has not been fleshed out with statutory language that meets the ideals of that framework. My concern is it is so far from the ideals of that framework that it is not a good choice for us at this moment. There will be time for us to fix it on the Senate floor. There will be time for us to pass amendments that could make it better, but it is troubling to me at this point.

I hope our colleagues who are involved in actually writing this bill will not be so hard-headed about their commitment to sticking together on the core principles that they all agreed to and pull out all the stops to make sure they have the votes to not allow any significant amendments. We do need some significant amendments to make this bill appropriate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source