Speech #1010216660

Further. I believe we remove one of the few incentives left for permanent residents to become U.S. citizens. the incentive to bring in family. Michael Teitelbaum. a wellrespected demographer and expert in international migration and frequent witness before the Subcommittee on Immigration. Refugees. and International Law characterized this bills change in the second preference as a "breathtakingly bad idea" because it creates another visa to which aliens are entitled. As we all know. Mr. Chairman. from outGrammRudman experiences. entitlements are fine when the Government has lots of money. but they are a real problem when tight budgets are the rule. The analogy applies here: As long as the country is able to sustain our cur. rent record high levels of immigration. H.R. 4300 may not raise too many eyebrows. However. what if our economy goes into a severe recession. or if other factors occur which make it clear we must reduce immigration levels? We should maintain control of the second preference numbers and simply be flexible in their allocation. Finally. Mr. Chairman. it should be made clear that current law already Ooes reunify existing families. If a person is the beneficiary of a preference visa. he or she may bring in accompanying spouses and dependent children. However. if the person is the beneficiary of amnesty. he or she may be joined by any person who also entered with him or her when the illegal entry was made. Any alien has the right to bring independent family members when that principal alien emigrates. As my friend Senator ALAN SIMPSON on May 17. the change in the second preference goes beyond the unification of existing families. It rewards less compelling cases of familyconnected immigration. That is. an alien who starts a family outside the United States after having emigrated to the United States. In this instance. an alien enters without immediate family. then marries someone from the home country. and petitions for their entry before the principal alien becomes a citizen. I do not find this instance compelling enough to create a whole new immigration entitlement. Mr. Chairman. the second preference change in H.R. 4300 is also strongly opposed by the administration. My amendment keeps the family preference definitions as they are in current law and keeps the overall numbers the same as in current law. My amendment does. however. adjust current law. and that the percentages ascribed to each preference category are changed to give greater emphasis to nuclear family immigration. and thus a second preference will receive additional visas. My amendment also adopts the definition of the second preference in Senate 358. which enables the spouse and unmarried sons and daughters who are under 26 years of age of permanent resident aliens to obtain permanent residency. I believe that unmarried sons and daughters who are 26 years of age or older should not be considered part of the nuclear family of the permanent resident alien. If we did not face a situation where there are fewer visas available than demand exists for them. then this amendment would not be necessary. However. we must face reality. We must choose to whom we should give priority. In my book. minor children and spouses should enter before children over 26 years of age are given visas. Let me emphasize that the adult children over 26 are not completely cut out by the amendment. When their parents become citizens. these adult sons and daughters may be admitted under either the first preference. unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. or the fourth preference. married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their family.