Mr. Chairman. first I would like to respond to what the gentleman from Connecticut Just said. I know the gentleman felt like he was making a statement of fact. but I want to set the record straight. and that is that in this amendment there are provisions for 150.000 employmentbased immigrants. and that figure will not go down. That will remain constant. Mr. Chairman. some opponents to the amendment say that a firm limit of 630.000 immigrants is somehow contrary to what I said before. is somehow antlimmigrant. But I want to point out again what this amendment does is raise current legal immigration by about 25 percent. The level of 630.000 immigrants per year set by my amendment was supported in the U.S. Senate by a vote last summer of 81 to 17. Is this an unreasonable level? The concept of a firm level of immigration was supported by the U.S. Senate in the 100th Congress by a vote of 88 to 4. This is not unreasonable. Mr. Chairman. my amendment takes the immigration policy. that is more generous than the rest of the world combined. the current U.S. law. and increases it by about 25 percent. So I do not understand why all the criticism. The critics of this amendment have fallen prey to a basic illogical fallacy: If you do not support all my increases. you must be supporting a decrease.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrants