Speech #970274882

The conference has apprehensions about discrimination in employment as a result of the title I provisions. It objects to the twotiered approach to legalization and limited Federal assistance to aliens achieving legal satus. Fifth. the Citizens Committee for Immigration Reform is comprised of such notable participants as Benjamin Civiletti. Lane Kirkland. Cyrus Vance. Douglas Fraser. Elliott Richardson. and Gerald Ford. The committee opposes any efforts to modify the current family reunification. system of preferences and inclusion of refugees in the annual immigration ceiling. The committee emphasizes the best legalization program would be the broadest. permitting all undocumented persons to become permanent residents upon coming forward with proper documentation. and with all the rights and benefits of permanent resident aliens. Given further study. the committee supports the Judiciary Committees temporary worker program. without expansion of provisions by the Education and Labor Committee. Sixth. the National Conference of State Legislatures is concerned about local and State government reimbursement provisions in section 303 of the bill and contends that any effort to provide reimbursement through a block grant will fall short of the unanticipated costs of the legalization program. Seventh. the Associated General Contractors of America charges that enforcement of immigration law is up to the Government and that the bill. as currently drafted. increases the potential for civil rights litigation. Eighth. the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) warns that employer sanctions will be ineffective in preventing the employment of undocumented workers and the flow of illegals will continue. LULAC suggests that Congress view our immigration policies with a broader perspective which incorporates foreign policy considerations. Accordingly. the United States must nurture positive relations with developing countries and seek ways to relieve internal population pressures and employment disparities which encourage exodus. With unequivocal opposition or with major recommended changes. the following national organizations have expressed great concern about this bill: The American Civil Liberties Union. the American Farm Bureau. the U.S. Committee for Refugees. the Western Range Association. the National Council of the Churches of Christ. the Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council. the InterAmerican Council on Manpower and Development. Inc.. the Organization of Chinese Americans. Inc.. the American Committee on Italian Migration. the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). the Federation of Indian Associations. and the International Longshoremens and Warehousemens Union. The list is exhaustless and clearly demonstrates the lack of consensus among national groups on the bill before us today. At the local level. other advocates for immigration reform emerge and voice distinct concerns. Like other Members of Congress. I am concerned most about how legislation will affect the district I have been elected to represent. Southern California. and Orange County in particular. have been quite vocal on the subject of immigration reform. There are many reasons for this. The first and most obvious reason is that the people of southern California have participated actively in our Nations refugee resettlement program. Orange County alone has resettled and absorbed some 70.000 refugees since 1980. In recent years. State and local governments have pleaded for Federal assistance in proportion to their contribution in this national mis. sion. Each and every step of the way. Federal financial assistance has been abated and delayed. Discrepancies in the administrations commitment to reimbursement leaves Orange and Los Angeles Counties. at best. cautious about a Federal immigration policy which will include a massive legalization program without guarantees for appropriate financial suppc rt. The number of illegals expected to come forward for legalization in Los Angeles County is over 1 million. in Orange County. as many as 80.000 could seek legal status if SimpsonMazzoli is adopted. The resources for implementing the legalization program must be adequate to make it work. and reimbursement to State and local governments must be insured. Floor amendments to dilute this provision and efforts to use it as a bargaining chip in conference must be prevented. People in my district are interested in immigration reform. because they do not want to see a repeat of "Operation Jobs." The unannounced storming of businesses and agricultural farms. corralling of workers and loss of productivity associated with INS enforcement tactics have been severely criticized by all involved. Workers and employers both recognize the importance of an illegal immigration control mechanism that works and does not include barbaric enforcement tactics. In these few moments. I have only touched on some of the issues at stake during our debate of the SimpsonMazzoli Immigration Reform Act. I know there are many among us who have been active in drafting this legislation. and I am thankful for their efforts. However. as it stands. the only consensus of opinion is that immigration control is needed. There is little consensus over the means to achieve it. Unless we can rid this bill of its great controversy. amend it to meet the interests of the parties it will affect. we cannot go home satisfied that we have conclusively and quite necessarily resolved the immigration issue. Many of us here today are not content with our lameduck consider. ation of this bill. and I firmly believe that we should place this issue on the agenda for the 98th Congress.