Speech #1090138997

The new version of title III contains important privacy. due process. and labor protections to ensure that implementation of this system is as fair and accurate as possible. That said. this system is a dramatic expansion of an existing pilot program that has faced a variety of serious problems. and I have concerns about expanding it to a nationwide mandatory scheme. Its implementation will require robust congressional oversight to ensure that citizens and workauthorized immigrants are not turned down for jobs because of mistaken results. Although the border security measures and the core reforms to our immigration system that are in this bill are very important. I do have concerns about some aspects of this bill. including some changes that were made to this bill during the amendment process on the Senate floor. One successful floor amendment would require the Government to build 370 miles of fence along the southern border. Every Member of this body recognizes that border security is critical to our Nations security. but I opposed the border fencing amendment because I cannot justify pouring Federal dollars into efforts that have questionable effectiveness. Border fencing costs between $1 million and $3 million per mile. And yet we will be committing vast resources to an initiative that I have serious doubts will even work. While fencing can be effective in urban areas. adding hundreds of miles of fencing in rural sections of the border will not stem the flow of people who are willing to risk their lives to come to this country. I was also disappointed that the Senate approved the amendment making English the national language of the United States. Instead of considering divisive Englishonly amendments that fan the flames of tension over the issue of immigration. we should be providing recent immigrants with more opportunities to learn English. I also am concerned that this amendments language could limit the ability of the Federal Government to communicate with its citizens. which could have potentially devastating consequences in situations like national emergencies. That is why I supported an alternative amendment proposed by Senator SALAZAR. which simply recognized English as the "common and unifying" language of the United States. I continue to have serious concerns about some provisions in title II of the bill. Despite improvements that were made in the Judiciary Committee. title II still contains provisions that are both illadvised and unnecessary. Title II contains measures that require excessive deference to executive agency decisionmaking in a variety of immigration contexts that expand the categories of individuals subject to the most draconian immigration consequences and apply some of these changes retroactively and that require that civil immigration violators be put in the central criminal database used by local. State and Federal agencies around the country. Eroding due process rights for people in this country will not make us safer. nor is it in keeping with our Nations values of fairness and justice. It will be important that we work to improve some of these provisions in the conference process. I was very pleased. however. that the Senate voted in favor of an amendment that I offered on the floor to strike a provision in title II that could have had devastating consequences for asylum seekers. The provision would have made it harder for asylum seekers. victims of trafficking. and other immigrants to get a temporary stay of removal while they pursue their appeal than it would be to win on the merits. This absurd result has been rejected by seven courts of appeals. and the Senate is now on record as well. Although there are many other problems with title II of the bill. this was a significant improvement and reinstates a critical due process protection. An amendment offered by Senator ENSIGN relating to Social Security benefits. which was tabled. has been the subject of a great deal of misinformation. Under current law. undocumented immigrants are not entitled to Social Security benefits. and there is nothing in the underlying bill that would change this. Under the Ensign Social Security amendment. immigrants who paid into Social Security and later earned legal status would have been prevented from having their earnings that they already paid into the system count toward their retirement benefits. The amendment. which I opposed. would have limited the Social Security benefits only of U.S. citizens and those in the country legally. This amendment would have harmed elderly or disabled individuals who would be impoverished despite having paid into the Social Security system for many years and would deny innocent American children who are born to these workers survivor benefits. regardless of how long their mother or father worked and paid taxes in the United States.