I respond. perhaps viscerally. but very strongly against the issue of having a preference for English. and I am glad to see that it was soundly defeated. When the amendment came before the Judiciary Committee. it lost. as I recollect. on a vote of 10 to 2. and even some in subcommittee chang~ed their views. when we had the vote in the Judiciary Committee. I think if more Senators had a chance to study the impact of the limitation on English and the potential that has been produced in this country by immigrants who could not speak English. that the vote would have been much more lopsided than it was. rejecting a preference for those who could speak English. Mr. President. I think that some significant improvements have been made in this bill otherwise. There was an amendment offered yesterday by Senators HATCH and DECONCINI. and I will take just a moment to express my own view that. had I been present on the floor or had an opportunity to submit a written statement. I would have supported that amendment strongly. as I did vote for it. which set an annual floor of 216.000 visas for the family connection categories to ensure that family preference immigration is not eliminated over time. I make those comments. Mr. President. to express my own views on the value to this country to have immigrants. We should not be parsimonious and we should not be excessively restrictive in keeping down the number of immigrants. There is no magic in the number of 600.000. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina had offered an amendment very similar to the one that I am offering. except for the proposition that he would have taken the number from the 600.000.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrants visas