Speech #1040191376

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the Canady amendment. which would give preference to those immigrants who have proficiency in English. in effect the Englishonly immigrant. There is no disguising the fact that this is connected to a number of issues relating to language and language policy in this country. I was particularly struck in that context by the remarks of the previous speaker that this amendment is circumscribed in its application and that it is a start. That is the dangerous part. If we are going to start having this kind of a policy for a very limited group. but we frame it in the discussion of language policy for the country and we talk about it as just being the start. well. one wonders what is remaining. This amendment is a prime example of all the contradictions in this immigration reform bill. Earlier we were told that this bill would make it easier for spouses and children to be reunited even though the number of visas are going to be slashed by 240.000. Then in the Kim amendment we are told that adult children and siblings of legal immigrants niay be eligible for unused visas in other categories. such as employmentbased visas. even though very few could qualify under the strict employmentbased criteria. It was an amendment meant to go nowhere. Now we are told that every child. or even if a child or sibling could do all that. we find In the Canady amendment a new hurdle. one that is weighted clearly in favor of European immigrants at the expense of Latin American countries. Asian countries. African countries. where there are other vibrant and equally intelligent languages at work. We all know what the practical effect of this amendment will be on the diversity program. When the last major attempt at immigration reform in the 1920s moved away from ethnically and racially based immigration reform. we were all happy and we all endorsed that. However. this particular amendment is in effect a backdoor attempt that introduces an ethnic element into the discussion of immigration policy. We all know what the underlying motive is for English requirement proposals. and it clearly is not economic. You want immigrants that sound like you because chances are they are going to look like you. too. If you want to separate families. let us have a straightup vote on that. If you want to favor certain European countries. let us have a straightup vote on that.