I also rise. although in opposition. with deep respect for the gentleman from Iowa. whom I would support for anything. including Pope. Even though. from time to time. we differ on issues. he is a man of integrity and principle. The arguments have been made today by the chairman. and they will be by others in opposition to the King amendment. in a substantive way. that even though section 203 only affects 12 percent of the counties of this country. it was enacted for sound reasons and we still need it. that to support the King amendment could literally hurt the elderly. who in many cases were excluded from the English proficiency requirements of naturalization and. therefore. would. if this amendment passed. be denied the language assistance to participate as American citizens in the voting process. There has also been the .thoughtful discussion that we are not just talking about choosing between candidate A and B. but rather. Mr. Chairman. we are talking about ballot initiatives that can oftentimes be written in double negatives. and so language assistance is appropriate for Americans in exercising their bloodbought right to vote. So I just simply rise today in opposition to the King amendment. to say that language requirements belong in immigration law. not in the ballot box. I myself have authored an immigration reform proposal that would require all new guest workers within 2 years to pass a 40hour course in English proficiency. And I believe. as many of my colleagues who support this amendment believe. that it is central to assimilation and to becoming a part of the American experience to achieve English proficiency. But I say with deep respect to my sincere colleague.
Keywords matched
naturalization immigration