Speech #1090120012

I sat here with interest. listening to the Senator from North Dakota. I think we agree on an awful lot. I may not agree with everything he said. but he made some very salient points with respect to the earlier laws we have passed on this issue of immigration and the amnestythat is what it amounted tothat was given to certain folks who were included in the previous immigration bill the Senator addressed. He is exactly right. It didnt work back then. While there are provisions in this bill. .52. Pt. 4 April 3. 2006 some of which I may agree withthey may be goodthere are certain other points in this which simply are not very good pieces of legislation I would like to take a moment to speak on the amnesties that exist in the immigration bill passed by the Judiciary Committee that is now under discussion on the floor. Some in the Senate like to call it something elseearned adjustment or earned citizenshipto try to distinguish it from what Congress has done in the past. However. I believe that the legislation adopted by the Judiciary Committee is so similar to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act passed by Congress. which everyone agrees is amnesty. that in fairness. what the Senate is being asked to consider today should likewise be called amnesty. One reason why I am opposed to amnesty. or earned legalization. is because the last time Congress addressed what to do about the illegal population in our country. a similar approach was agreed upon. and it did not work. In the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. increased enforcement. both at the border and in the interior of the U.S.. and especially with regards to employer sanctions was mandated to eliminate the jobs magnet for so many illegal immigrants. In addition. the theory was that our increased border security would stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming into the country. Coupled with this enforcement was an amnesty offered to illegal aliens who met specified requirements in order to bring them out of the shadows and allow them to acquire legal status. There were actually two amnesties included in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986the Legally Authorized WorkersLAWprogram and the Special Agricultural Worker Program--SAW. Similarly in the bill put forth by the Judiciary Committee. there are mandates for increased border security and interior enforcement as well as a strong emphasis on employer sanctions. Coupled with this also exists two amnesties: one for the estimated 11 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. and another for illegal aliens working in agriculture. The 1986 SAW Program required that illegal aliens work a certain number of hours in agriculture in order to obtain a temporary legal status. Then 1 to 2 years after obtaining a temporary legal status. those agricultural workers were given permanent residency status. Now. every Senator I have seen come to the floor has called this 1986 SAW program an amnesty. yet many maintain that the current Judiciary Committee proposal is not an amnesty. However. the current agricultural program in the Judiciary Committee bill is constructed in much the same way: Illegal aliens who worked 150 hours in agriculture in the 2year period ending on December 31. 2005. can obtain a temporary legal status. here called a blue card. Then by working 100 hours per year in agriculture for 5 years or by working 150 hours per year in agriculture for 3 years. that illegal alien will be given permanent resident status. So the only difference between a program that is unanimously agreed upon to be amnesty and one that is argued not to be is the requirement that the illegal aliens work in agriculture for 100 to 150 hours per year. The waiting time instead of 1 to 2 years is now 3 or 5. but that is it. The rest is the same. These illegal aliens are not required to work in any other industry or for any greater amount of time than 100 hours per year or 150 hours per year. Not only that but they do not have to wait in line behind everyone outside the country trying to legally enter the U.S. in order to get their permanent resident status. Not only is this unfair. but it is a repeat of the 1986 approach. which is widely recognized as seriously flawed. We should not repeat the mistakes we made before. I am not the only one who feels this way. I recently attended a naturalization ceremony in Atlanta. GA. and was moved to see a room full of people from all over the world raise their right hand and take an oath of allegiance to the U.S. It was clearly a proud day for these people and their loved ones.