Speech #1090120085

I strongly reject what I would interpret as an open borders argument. First. I think it is ridiculous for anyone to argue that the United States neither has the ability nor the will to enforce its immigration laws. Should we not put any limit on how long a visitor can stay in the United States. how long a student can remain in the United States? That argument is a disservice to the hundreds of millions of tourists. executives. workers. and students who do comply with our immigration laws. The United States admits 500 million visitors a year. and only a fraction of a percentage makes the affirmative decision to violate our laws and to stay here. I also believe that effective worksite enforcement will allow workers to work during the term of their visa but then to return once their visa expires. The 1986 amnesty promised that illegal workers would not be able to find work. but here we are today with 5 percent of our workforce using false documents. I will. therefore. not support any reform proposal unless I am confident that illegal workers will not be able to find employment in the United States but for legal channels. If we actually believe we cannot enforce the law. if temporary doesnt mean temporary. if there is no distinction between legal and illegal. we are essentially raising a white flag and saying we will not enforce our own laws. I cannot imagine this great institution taking that position either affirmatively. expressly. or tacitly. I also reject the argument that a true temporary worker visa is inconsistent with the natural migration patterns of workers. The American Lawyers Association states that before 1986. the average length of stay in the United States was only 1.7 years. Since 1986. the amnesty that was created in that year. the length of stay has increased to 3.5 years. up from 1.7 The bottom line is most workers do not want to stay for 6 years. much less permanently. Douglas Massey. a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. argues that the 1986 amnesty: Succeeded in transforming a seasonal flow of temporary workers into a more permanent population of settled legal immigrants. He wrote that. prior to 1986: Most immigrants sought to work abroad temporarily in order to mitigate and manage risks and acquire capital for a specific goal or purpose. By sending one family member abroad for a limited period of foreign labor. households could diversify their sources of income and accumulate savings from the United States earnings. In both cases. the fundamental objective was to return to their country of originin this case. he says: "Mexico." He arguesand I agreethat the 1986 amnesty actually resulted in a decrease in circular migration. The committee amendment on the floor would do exactly the same thing. It would destroy the incentive for circular migration and the benefits that would accruenot just to the United States but to the country of origin. to whence the immigrant would return with the savings and skills they have acquired here. In a survey by the Pew Hispanic Center of Mexicans Abroad. they support the argument that migrant workers would participate In a true temporary worker program. Indeed. 71 percent of those surveyed. which were 5.000 applicants for the matriculator consular card in the United States. 71 percent said they would participate in a temporary worker program. even if they knew that at the end of the period of their visas. they would have to return to their country of origin. Finally. our country is enjoying a strong period of economic growth. The economy created almost a quarter of a million jobs in February and has created 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 monthsalmost 5 million new jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent. lower than the average of the 1970s. the 1980s. and the 1990s. We may not always enjoy a strong economy. and a true temporary worker program allows our visa policy to adapt to the peaks and valleys of our economic needs. I supported Senator KYLs amendment in the committee that would limit the number of temporary worker visas if unemployment reaches certain levels. But that amendment means nothing if all workers are on green cards or on a path to legal permanent residency or citizenship. Everyone. it seems. describes their proposal as a guest worker or temporary worker program. But not all temporary worker programsor at least those sold under the guise of a temporary worker programare. in fact. temporary. It is important. both to our economy and to American nativeborn workers who compete with this new workforce. that we modulate and moderate the flow of workers into our country at a time when our economy can sustain them and not take jobs away from people who are born here or who are legal immigrants. It is also critical that we recognize the importance of the restoration of these circular migration patterns which. in fact. benefit countries such as Mexico and in Central America because they are literally being hollowed out: People permanently leaving those countries. making it difficult for them to generate jobs and grow their economy. so that people can stay home if they wish and not have to leave their family and their culture and their country in order to come to the United States to sustain themselves and their families. My point is our colleagues and those in the news media and the American people listening should listen carefully to not only what people call their different sort of worker programs or visas but actually how they function. and insist that if colleagues are going to call a guest worker program a temporary worker program. that it is. in fact. temporary. and that if it is a guest program. that it not be someone who is going to permanently move in with us. Guests. in fact. ultimately are supposed to return and not stay. I realize time is short for this portion of the debate. but I did want to make those points.