I rise in opposition to this amendment for a simple reason. I think it is the wrong way to go about something that all of us feel strongly about. There is no one here. there is no one in the country who believes that our immigration laws should not be enforced. The President had a speech. a presentation yesterday in which he talked about ways that the improved enforcement of our immigration laws could take place. He talked about putting more money into the Border Patrol. He talked about putting more money into law enforcement. Everybody agrees that we can do a better job in that regard. Everybody understands that the work that has gone on in the airports has probably not been adequate to the task. We passed an immigration bill some years ago which I think has brought about some improvement. One of its main tenents was that we would ask the Nations employers to be involved in trying to see that undocumented workers are not hired. While it has not been perfect. nothing will be. it has caused some improvement. but this amendment. I think. goes way too far and will not be effective. In fact. it would be counterproductive. Let me read again from the United States Catholic Conference: The Baker amendment would inhibit delivery of charitable services to all minorities. particularly those who look or sound foreign. who may have foreignsounding surnames. regardless of their immigration status. They go on to say: As Attorney General Janet Reno has pointed out.the Baker amendment would place an inappropriate burden on organizational participants. many of whom are illequipped to undertake the factfinding required to support the proposed enforcement function. I do not think any of us want to put a burden. a requirement on organizations and people to enforce the immigration law that they cannot undertake. It would be unfair. It would be wrong.
Identified stereotypes
Minorities who look or sound foreign or have foreign-sounding surnames are targeted.