She is an effective fighter and. as always. the presenter of important and constructive ideas. I am constrained to oppose the amendment because I think if we were to allow everybody who has been in this country since January 1. we will destroy the coalition. and we have made a distinction for those here longer than 5 years from those here 2 to 5 years on a principle basisthat those who are here longer and who have roots ought to be accorded greater consideration. We have drawn a line on January 7. 2004. because that was the date the President made a speech on immigration and people who came to the United States in illegal status after that date were on notice. you might say. maybe constructive notice. if they didnt know about it exactly. but they were on notice that they would not be accorded the same status as those who have been here earlier. We have used that as a cutoff date. My view is that we are working on legislation which is of great importance to our country. We face a real test as to whether we will retain our principle of a welcoming nation to immigrants who earned their status to become citizens. I think we have worked through the Judiciary Committee where we had a very difficult markup. and one marathon session to meet the timetable established by the majority leader. The bill has been vigorously debated on both sides. I think there has been some concession of significance from the votes to those who are opposed to having an expansive view of guest workers and an expansive view according to immigrant status to move toward citizenship. We have a great deal more work to do. I am confident. or optimistic or perhaps even hopeful that we will pass this bill in the Senate. and then we will look forward to the conference with the House of Representatives which has evidenced a very different view.
Keywords matched
immigrant immigrants immigration