Immigration

Floor Speech

IMMIGRATION -- (Senate - June 27, 2007)

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his indulgence. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to the issue before the Senate today.

The debate over immigration has been a contentious one. Soon we are going to come to that moment of truth when we all have the opportunity to cast a vote either for or against the so-called ``grand bargain'' that is before the Senate. Most of us are going to make that vote formed by our own experiences, formed by our conscience, formed by our constituents, and like so many others in this Chamber, those are all factors that come into play and influence the way that I view this very important and serious issue.

In fact, to speak to some of the experiences I have had, it was not too long ago I was in a supermarket in my home State of South Dakota in Sioux Falls. I was approached by someone who was working there who had asked me to help with a problem. It turns out he was in this country, and his wife had been here illegally. They had a child here. The child, therefore, is a citizen. His wife determined that she wanted to be legal. So she left this country and went back home and decided to come here through a legal mechanism. That was a year ago. For the past year, she has been trying to come back to this country legally. I have been working with her. They have to first get an immigrant waiver and then ultimately go through the process where she can come into this country and come legally.

I make that point because I believe it is very relevant to the debate we are having on the floor of the Senate. If this woman who wanted to do the right thing and decided to go back because she wanted to come into the United States of America legally--she didn't want to be here illegally--had just stayed here, under this bill, she could become legalized. What does that say to all the people such as her who are trying to follow the laws, who are trying to play by the rules we have created?

That is one episode, one example, as I look at this debate and think about the consequences for those who have played by the rules, those who follow our laws, those who observe the rule of law in America, how it forms the way I view this issue.

We have been told throughout this debate that this is the best compromise
that can be achieved and, after all, isn't compromise the essence of what the Senate is all about, is coming to a consensus after a long debate? The difference with this grand bargain is that the die was cast long before the debate began. The process whereby this bill came to the floor bypassed the regular order, and its outcome has been ordained by the grand bargainers to prevent amendments that might actually improve the bill from becoming part of the solution to America's broken immigration system.

Opposing the underlying bill or proposing amendments to improve it has led to labels such as anti-immigrant or nativist or xenophobic. I am none of the above. It is not anti-immigrant to be for the rule of law. It is not nativist to be for enforcing America's laws. And it is not xenophobic to believe that those who come to America should come here legally.

America has a long tradition as a welcoming nation. I am a product of that tradition. In 1906, two Norwegian brothers named Nicolai and Matthew Gjelsvik came to America from Norway. The only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee,'' which evidently they learned on the way over.

When they arrived at Ellis Island, the immigration officials determined that their given name would be too difficult to spell and pronounce for people in this country so they asked them to change it. G-j-e-l-s-v-i-k was how they spelled it. They picked the name of the farm where they worked near Bergin, Norway, which was called the Thune Farm. So Nicolai Gjelsvik became Nick Thune, my grandfather.

Then, as now, there was a great demand in America's economy for workers. They went to work on the transcontinental railroad doing hard manual labor. they learned English and made enough to start a small merchandising company which subsequently became a hardware store that to this day bears their name. They came here for the opportunity that America offered--the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.

Their story has been duplicated millions and millions of times over and continues today. Millions and millions of Americans came here from other places, but they came here legally. I support them and the millions more who are still to come. You see, you can be pro-immigration and pro rule

of law. The two are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate violates that bedrock American distinction of the rule of law. Under this bill, somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants will be immediately legalized.

Ironically, it is that very rule of law that serves as a magnet that attracts people to America. The reason America's economy is the most prosperous in the world is its foundation is in the rule of law. Concepts such as legal certainty, private property rights, and an independent judiciary provide the framework for the most successful economy in the history of civilization. It doesn't happen by happenstance. It happens because the rule of law is an inviolable principle of American democracy.

The solution to America's broken immigration system is really quite simple: Enforce the laws in the workplace and enforce the laws at the border. Sacrificing America's most basic foundational principle in the interest of a short-term fix betrays the belief of the millions who are here legally and the millions more to come that America is different because here the rule of law matters.

President Ronald Reagan once said that a nation that ``can't control its own borders can't control its destiny.'' We are a country, we are a nation. We need the strong border security measures in this bill, and we need the strong workplace verification measures in this bill, but the immediate legalization of 12 million people is a bridge too far.

It contradicts one of the great ideals of our democracy and sends wrong and conflicting signals to those who are here currently and those who will come in the future. The demand for workers in America can be met when those here illegally go back and return through legal channels or when they are replaced by those who wait to come legally. This bill is the wrong solution, and I believe and I hope that the Senate will reject it.

We can get a good immigration bill, a solid immigration bill that secures the border, that deals with the issue of workplace verification, and it sends the right message to those who are waiting to come to America that America is a nation, a welcoming nation, a nation that is pro-immigration, but a nation that fundamentally respects its great tradition as a nation that is based upon the rule of law.

I hope my colleagues, as they consider how they will vote tomorrow on these important votes, will think about the importance of that tradition of the rule of law, the importance of the message we send to those who have observed our laws, such as the lady I mentioned whose husband is in Sioux Falls, SD, and she hopes to come back to our great country and to our State. She made a fundamental decision that she was going to play by the rules, she was going to follow the laws. There are so many like her. What we want to do is send a message that people like her are welcome here, people who follow our laws. We don't want to reward those who come here illegally. I believe on a most basic level that is what the legislation before the Senate does.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these important votes tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Source