Speech #1010042555

It is true. Mr. President. that this legislation increases the number of visas which will be available for family sponsored immigration. Thus. Asian and Hispanic family reunification efforts theoretically could be benefited by this legislation. However. this possible benefit is undermined by the fact that this legislation will also place family reunification visas under a cap under which immediate relatives will be pitted against other relatives. On one hand we would be increasing the number of visas available for family reunification. while on the other we would be establishing a system that could drastically curtail the availability of these visas as the demand for visas for immediate relatives increases. This simply does not make sense. Moreover. I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that the family social structure within our immigrant communities enhances the positive contributions which these communities make to our country. The select committee noted. "The reunification of families serves the national interest not only through the humaneness of the policy itself. but also through the promotion of the public order and wellbeing of the Nation. Psychologically and socially. the reunion of family members with their close relatives promotes the health and welfare of the United States." I do not believe. Mr. President. that we should depart from the traditional priority which has been given to family reunification under our immigration laws by placing family reunification visas under a cap. I will vote no on final passage for these reasons. and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let me say also this about the pending amendment offered by Senator HELMS. Unfortunately. I cannot be on the floor to participate when that is further discussed. but I would like to say the following: I oppose the amendment being offered by the Senator from North Carolina. and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it. also. This amendment. which would restrict the eligibility for fifth preference visas to never married brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy which this legislation seeks to implement. That Commission recommended that the fifth preference be retained. What this amendment would do is force the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens to choose between marriage and being reunited with their family members here in the United States. The argument that this should not cause us concern because these are mere sibling relationships ignores the cultural tradition in those countriesprimarily Hispanic and Asianwhere these visas are most used. For these immigrants. sibling relationships are as important as those relationships in a socalled nuclear family. Supporters of this amendment argue that family reunification for these individuals is "illusory" because they have to wait years and years before obtaining a fifth preference visa due to the large backlogs of applications for certain countries. The fact of the matter is that these individuals are willing to wait. Given their willingness to be patient. we should not now take steps to restrict eligibility for these visas. The Select Commission recognized that family reunification serves the national interest. The final report of the Select Commission explained. "The reunification of families serves the national interest not only through the humaneness of the policy itself. but also through the promotion of the public order and wellbeing of the Nation. Psychologically and socially. the reunion of family members with their close relatives promotes the health and welfare of the United States." California has a larger Asian and Hispanic population than any other State in the country.