Speech #820209763

Let us take. for example. page 23 of the bill. starting at the bottom of that page. subparagraph (3) : (3) A member of one or more of the classes of persons. whether excludible or not. described In paragraphs (11). (12). and (31) of section 212 (a) of this act. or paragraphs (9). (10). and (23) of section 212 (a). if the offense described therein. for which such person was convicted or of which he admits the commission. was committed during such period. "Of course. that is very explicit language. I am sure everyone within the range of my voice clearly understands what it means. I trust that everyone understands this language in section 102: (1) within the class described in paragraph (14) (A) (I) of section 101 (a). except those provisions relating to reasonable requirements of passports and visas as a means of identification and documentation necessary to establish their qualifications under such paragraph (14) (A) (i). and. under such rules and regulations as the President may deem to be necessaryAnd so forth. I could go on in this way and read all 302 pages of the bill. Mr. President. Of course. it is difficult to understand because it is filled with crossreferences. It is filled with references to laws passed since the beginning of the Republic. and I submit it is not what we might call a simplification of immigration laws. It may be a codification of immigration laws. but surely it is not a simplification or modernization. If I were to go through it page by page. it would sound as if one were reading mumbojumbo. I realize that the legal language of a statute is not always understandable. but it appears to me that a law can be written in such terms as can be understood by reasonably intelligent human beings. The legal complexities of this document are such as to test the intellectual fiber and the source of learning of the most capable immigration lawyer on the face of the earth. It is not easy to understandand I do not say that I know the "ins" and "outs" of every line of the billbut I submit that there are a number of provisions which are obviously and openly wrong and weak within the legislative structure of the bill which necessitate its recommittal and necessitate the revision of the bill in light of the evidence which has been brought forth. Mr.