No single issue nor piece of legislation has raised its concern as much as this legislation we are voting on today. It likewise raises the concerns of all of us who are concerned with these family values. Although the sponsors of this bill argue that this legislation will benefit those who rely on family preference visas to be reunited with their family members. the message I have received from these individuals is that they would prefer to see no reform legislation at all rather than see reforms which would include placing a cap on family sponsored immigration. I. personally. think we should pay attention to this message. There is no question that this legislation contains other positive reforms to our immigration system which would benefit the country. However. I would like to point out that we need not break with the traditional priority given to family reunification efforts in order to achieve these reforms. I was an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by Senator SIMON. S.448. and I still strongly believe that that legislation represented a much more balanced approach to legal immigration reform. In fact I would like to commend my good friend from Illinois for his efforts to see that a number of the profamily provisions contained in S. 448 were included in the compromise version of S. 358. S. 448like H.R. 672 currently before the House Subcommittee on Immigration. Refugees. and International Lawwould not have imposed a cap on family sponsored immigration. It is my hope that the legislation finally enacted into law will not contain this cap. I expect that the supporters of this legislation will argue that the cap is a very minor provision when compared with the other reforms contained in this bill.
Keywords matched
Refugees Immigration family reunification immigration visas