[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 159 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15167-S15169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


           THE FOURTH PREFERENCE FAMILY IMMIGRATION CATEGORY

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, immigration has been in the news a 
great deal over the past few months. The debate usually fails 
completely to account for the vast difference between legal and illegal 
immigration. Amidst calls for increased enforcement of our laws against 
illegal immigration to the United States--enforcement which I strongly 
support--we see proposals aimed at cutting back admissions of legal 
immigrants: those immigrants who play by the rules and enter our Nation 
the correct way.
  In general, I oppose the idea of further restricting legal 
immigration to the United States, and particularly oppose drastic cuts 
in family-based immigration. Those foreigners who demonstrate the 
initiative to move to the United States are among the most industrious 
and motivated members of their own nations. Like the immigrants who 
arrived in America before them, they come to this country to join their 
families and to carve out opportunities for themselves. In doing so, 
they enrich our country economically, culturally, and socially. Those 
who support cuts in legal immigration often do so without identifying 
any concrete 

[[Page S 15168]]
reason for these cuts, repeating only that the ``national interest'' 
justifies restricting both legal and illegal immigration. I cannot see 
how preventing worthy immigrants from reuniting with their families is 
in our national interest.
  Today, I would like to focus on one particular category of legal 
immigrants who face the threat of a locked door to the United States: 
the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, who are currently eligible 
for immigrant visas under the fourth family preference category in our 
immigration laws. Currently, 65,000 immigrants enter the United States 
annually under this category, and hundreds of thousands of others face 
a backlog. Both Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform and 
various Members of Congress have proposed eliminating this family 
preference category outright. I have great concerns about these 
proposals on two levels.
  First, proponents of elimination of the fourth family preference 
justify their proposals by emphasizing that our family-based 
immigration system should focus on the nuclear family, and that the 
sibling relationships protected by the fourth preference category are 
too attenuated to qualify as a priority in our immigration policy. I 
think that if we were to survey the American public, we would find that 
people of every ethnic and racial background value sibling 
relationships so much that they would--and do--fully support an 
immigration system that reunifies siblings as well as nuclear family 
members. While the public is undoubtedly and justifiably concerned 
about illegal immigration, I have seen no evidence that it devalues 
legal immigration generally, or sibling relationships in particular, in 
the manner suggested by those who propose eliminating the fourth family 
preference. In fact, quite the contrary.
  Second, I am especially concerned about the effect of elimination of 
the fourth preference on those individuals who are currently in the 
backlog. These prospective immigrants and their sponsors--who are 
citizens of the United States--have expended substantial resources and 
funds in attaining eligibility for an immigrant visa. They have played 
by the rules, and waited patiently for their numbers to come up. As 
much as these individuals want to reunite with their siblings, they 
have decided against taking the rash but convenient step of entering or 
staying in the United States illegally. It would be fundamentally 
unfair for the United States to take the money and run without 
fulfilling its commitment to these individuals.
  I submit for the Record a New York Times article from September 24, 
1995, which tells the story of Sonya Canton, a naturalized American 
citizen. She has two sisters, one of whom has illegally overstayed her 
visa to the United States, is living here today legally under the 1986 
amnesty, and will soon become eligible for citizenship; and the other 
of whom waits patiently in the fourth preference backlog, having paid 
both her fees and her dues. Mrs. Canton states: ``It is some kind of 
injustice when those who played by the rules can't get in, but those 
who broke the rules are now going to become citizens.'' I could not say 
it any better. At the very least, proposals to reform the fourth 
preference should, as a matter of fairness, provide for those in the 
current backlog.
  I bring to this issue a personal perspective. The director of my 
Chicago office, Nancy Chen, has sponsored two of her brothers into the 
United States under the fourth preference. Both of them live near her 
in Illinois, and both are productive members of society with good jobs. 
The closeness and industry demonstrated by this family is the very 
behavior we should applaud and encourage. I fear that by eliminating 
the fourth preference category we do just the opposite, and call on my 
colleagues in Congress and on the administration to find a more 
suitable solution in this area--one that, at the very least, treats 
those backlogged visa applicants with the fairness they deserve.
  The article follows:

             [From the New York Times, September 24, 1995]

                  Narrowing the U.S. Immigration Gate

                            (By Seth Mydans)

       Seventeen years ago, Sonya Canton, an American citizen born 
     in the Philippines, petitioned for her sister, a banker, to 
     join her here under the family-reunification policy that has 
     been the basic principle of United States immigration law for 
     30 years.
       While she was waiting, a second sister, who sold exotic 
     seashells for a living, visited the United States as a 
     tourist, liked the place and decided to stay on illegally 
     with her three children.
       To this sister's surprise and good fortune, in 1986 
     Congress offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and she and 
     her children became legal residents, eligible for 
     citizenship. Today she works as a saleswoman in a department 
     store, and her children have all graduated from high school 
     with honors.
       Meanwhile, as a banker sister continues to wait, the mood 
     of the country, and of Congress, has changed. Struggling to 
     stem a flood of legal and illegal immigrants, Congress is 
     preparing to cut deeply into family-reunification quotes this 
     fall and drop people like her from eligibility.
       If the changes are enacted, the United States would shut 
     the door on about 2.4 million people--the brothers, sisters 
     and adult children of citizens and legal residents--who have 
     waited for years or decades to enter the country as legal 
     immigrants. That number nearly matches the three million 
     illegal immigrants granted amnesty in 1986.
       ``It is some kind of injustice when those who played by the 
     rules can't get in, but those who broke the rules are now 
     going to become citizens,'' said Ms. Canton, an import 
     specialist for the United States Customs Service.
       But even immigration advocates concede that the current law 
     has become unwieldy, with a total of 3.5 million people 
     waiting--some in lines that stretch for 40 years or more--to 
     join relatives in the United States.
       In some countries, like the Philippines, the projected wait 
     for American visas is so long that the categories for 
     siblings and adult children effectively no longer exist. 
     Nonetheless, the applications keep coming in, and the lines 
     grow longer. The solution most favored by Congress is to 
     focus on the nuclear family and to eliminate from eligibility 
     those with less immediate ties.
       ``I don't think there is any risk that family unity will be 
     eliminated as a basis for immigration to the United States,'' 
     said Arthur C. Helton, an immigration expert with the Open 
     Society Institute, a lobbying group in New York that studies 
     international issues. ``But what that means in a number of 
     specific contexts will be redefined, and a focus on the 
     immediate nuclear family will emerge.''
       That approach became evident when a Presidential commission 
     led by Barbara Jordan, a Democrat and former Representative 
     from Texas, recently began drafting proposed changes in the 
     immigration law. In an interim report issued in June, the 
     commission recommended, among other things, allowing citizens 
     and legal residents to bring in only spouses and minor, 
     unmarried children--not their siblings or adult children.
       Congress is now considering a number of immigration bills. 
     The most far-reaching was submitted in June by Representative 
     Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who heads the House 
     subcommittee on immigration. His bill is in the hands of the 
     House Judiciary Committee. In the Senate, Alan K. Simpson, 
     Republican of Wyoming, is preparing to introduce a similar 
     bill.
       The Smith and Simpson measures largely attack illegal 
     immigration; they propose stronger border controls, workplace 
     enforcement and deportation procedures. In addressing legal 
     immigration, the bills drastically cut family-reunification 
     admissions by making the siblings and grown children of legal 
     residents and citizens no longer eligible for immigration. 
     The Smith bill would reduce the number of legal immigrants to 
     535,000 a year, compared with about 800,000 last year.
       The changes would reduce the waiting lists and speed the 
     entry of the spouses and minor children of legal residents. 
     Currently, the spouses and minor children of United States 
     citizens can enter immediately, without a numerical quota. 
     But about 1.1 million spouses and minor children of legal 
     residents are caught in the backlog, along with siblings and 
     children over 21.
       Apart from family reunification, the primary avenue for 
     immigration into the United States is employment.
       The 1986 amnesty is partly responsible for the flood of 
     applicants that has created pressure for the changes. About 
     80 percent of the spouses and minor children on the 
     immigration waiting lists are relatives of those who won 
     legal residence under that law, Government figures show.
       The total family-preference waiting list of 3.5 million is 
     twice as long as when the amnesty law took effect. Under 
     current quotas, only 253,721 of those waiting will receive 
     visas this year, even as the list of applicants grows longer.
       The backlog includes one million applicants from Mexico and 
     about 500,000 from the Philippines. Before the 1986 amnesty, 
     the Philippines was the largest source of legal immigrants 
     into the United States. Those countries are followed by 
     India, China, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, South 
     Korea, El Salvador and Haiti.
       Short of raising the ceiling for immigration, there seems 
     to be little way to accommodate the lengthening waiting list 
     of siblings and adult children.
       ``Clearly the public mood and the practical realities of 
     today's America require that we cut down on immigration,'' 
     said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for 
     American Immigration Reform, an independent lobbying group.

[[Page S 15169]]

       Calling the Jordan, Smith and Simpson proposals ``an effort 
     to strike a balance,'' he said, ``We have to make these 
     decisions based on what is in our national interest.'' He 
     added, ``We have no duty or obligation to people who have 
     been waiting in line because the system is impractical in the 
     first place.''
       But opponents say the cuts are politically motivated and 
     unnecessary. ``Since when did the United States become too 
     small for the parents and children and brothers and sisters 
     of United States citizens?'' asked Frank Sharry, executive 
     director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration 
     lobbying group. ``The idea of bringing in energetic newcomers 
     who are helped by family members to get a leg up in this 
     society is something that has worked for 300 years.''
       He added, ``For a Congress that prides itself in being pro-
     family, it seem hypocritical to cut family immigration by 30 
     percent.''
       One potential victim of the expected changes is Leticia 
     Chong, a Filipino nurse who has played by the rules and 
     prospered. She entered the country legally in 1981, became a 
     legal resident, obtained both business and nursing degrees 
     here and brought up five Philippines-born children to become 
     American doctors, nurses and engineers. Today they are all 
     either citizens or legal residents.
       Her problem is her sixth and last child, an engineering 
     student who will turn 21 this month, having waited in vain 
     for his name to come up in the backlog of petitions for minor 
     children of legal residents. He now enters the category of 
     adult children, and--like Ms. Canton's banker sister--he 
     would simply be dropped from eligibility under the proposed 
     changes.
       ``He has been here since he was 11 years old,'' Mrs. Chong 
     said. ``He has friends here. His family is here. This is his 
     home. What will he do if he has to go back to the 
     Philippines?''

                          ____________________