Chairman. if the Members will listen. they may find it is more exciting than it seems. We are dealing here with what we came out of conference with. The reason it deals with noncitizens is that under the legalization portion of this bill. the matched pair of sanctions. we are telling people who have been here illegally. "We want you now to present yourselves for legalization." but we do not want them to be in limbo where while they present themselves they will not get any job protection. because people say. "Hey. I dont like you getting legalized and I wont hire you." They are not otherwise protected. The intent of the overall amendment was to provide them protection. I stress that because I believe in the form that we now have it. and if the amendment of the gentleman from California is adopted. I suppose it is even more acceptable to people on the other side who would have accepted it in conference. this is an essential part I believe of any immigration bill. If we are going to have sanctions. many of us feel in good faith with a lot of citizens. especially Hispanic Americans. requires that we deal with the potential for antidiscrimination. If we get rid of sanctions. we get rid of this. It exists to deal with the potential of sanction driven discrimination and it is an essential provision. because we do not want to further burden the EOC. Now. we did cover noncitizens. The gentleman from California has an amendment which says. as I understand it. and this is where I would like to address him. not that it totally strips out protection for noncitizens. but that an employer who is faced with people of equal qualifications who decides to prefer the American citizen can legally do so. not that an employer is being invited to say. "I wont hire any of those people who will be legalized." Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from California for a reply to see if I have correctly stated that proposition.
Keywords matched
noncitizens immigration