Speech #1010216644

Chairman. the amendment does not change any definitions. It does not change transition programs. The 630.000 immigrant level is allocated in this way: 430.000 to family based Immigration. 150.000 to employment based immigrants. and 50.000 to diversity immigrants. Mr. Chairman. once again this amendment focuses on priorities. I think we need to increase. even if it is slightly. the number of visas that go to immediate family members. and we need to increase. even if it is slightly. the percentage of employment based or skilled immigrants. That is the reason for this amendment. There are a number of considerations. Mr. Chairman. when it comes to this particular amendment. The premise is that we either have to limit immigration or we have to open our borders. and if we are going to limit immigration. surely that means we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to come into this country. and once again some selectivity Is absolutely mandatory. That is the core issue. So my question is. Why not give preference to immediate family members. Why not give preference to employmentbased. skilled immigrants? The needs of this country are clearly demonstrated by a number of studies. I referred to them before. and it is important that we not forget them. That is that every study that has been taken that projects the employment needs of this country going into the future calls for more skilled immigrants and more educated immigrants. We are simply going to have to do that to remain competitive on an international level. I might point out. Mr. Chairman. that there are two other countriesin fact. they rank second and third after the United States as far as the number of immigrants they admitwho have dramatically changed their immigration policies. I am referring to the countries of Canada and Australia. Just a few years ago those two countries had a very liberal immigration policy. They had an immigration policy that we might say followed along the lines of H.R. 4300. They have changed their immigration policy and are now much more restrictive in the sense that they emphasize skill. they emphasize education. and they regrettably are having to deemphasize the familybased immigration that applies especially to extended members of the family. Mr. Chairman. these are the types of countries that we have to compete with. These are the countries that have immigration policies far different from ours. I mentioned Australia and Canada. I think it is also of interest that probably our main rival on the international scene. Japan. has virtually no migration. I am not suggesting that the United States have no immigration. In fact. as I said earlier. I favor increased immigration. but what I am pointing to is that the United States is competing with other countries that do emphasize skilled workers. that do emphasize education and skilled immigrants. and as a result those countries are getting from their pool of immigrants in the world many of those same types of individuals. As George Borjas. the professor who wrote a book and has the most current data on this subject. said recently. we are basically losing the competition for the skilled and educated immigrants of the world. and that is because we have an immigration policy that H.R. 4300 hopes to expand. a policy of not giving enough emphasis to the skilled and educated immigrants who might come here. Mr. Chairman. when we allow individuals to come into this country in great numbers who do not have the requisite skills and education. those individuals are going to compete directly with Americans who do not have the skills and education that they should have. and my question is this: If we are going to need to train individuals. if we are going to need to provide certain individuals with more education. and if we have limited resources with which to do that. why should we not train and educate American citizens first? We simply cannot afford to train and educate hundreds of thousands of additional immigrants who are unskilled and do not have the education that is required by our own work force. Mr. Chairman. there is a real cost associated with any increase in the number of people. whether it be immigrants or others. and this goes for people who might come to the United States. people of any kind from anywhere. and we simply cannot close our eyes to the impact they would have. I would love to be wonderfully idealistic. I would love for us to talk theory. but unfortunately we need to talk to mayors and members of city councils. and to Governors and to other individuals who bear the brunt of so many immigrants coming into their communities. They are the ones who are going to have to foot the bill for educational costs. health care costs. and government services. It is often said. Mr. Chairman. that immigrants who are allowed to come into this country do so under the provision that they are not going to become a public charge for 5 years. I know individuals will use that as an argument that these immigrants are not going to use government services. But in point of fact. Mr. Chairman. that regulation that immigrants should not be a public charge for 5 years is absolutely meaningless. In 1989 only one immigrant was deported for being a public charge. despite the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were in fact receiving welfare payments. So. Mr. Chairman. that is simply not an issue. Mr. Chairman. here is another point: Most immigrants are lawabiding. upstanding individuals who contribute greatly to society. But some are not. and in fact onethird of the inmates in our Federal prisons today are not citizens. The individuals who are not citizens in our prisons today are there at four times their proportion to the population as a whole. and the cost to the criminal justice system is in the billions of dollars. Also. the type of immigrants who are coming into this country is changing. Mr. Borjas points out that years ago they had more skills to offer. Today the immigrants who are coming into this country are. comparatively speaking. less skilled and less educated than those immigrants who have gone before. Mr. Chairman. this amendment sets priorities. and it sets priorities because we have to be selective in some way.