[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16634-S16635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    A DEEPLY FLAWED IMMIGRATION BILL

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, now that the House Judiciary 
Committee has passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, many 
eyes will be turning to the Senate to see what efforts in this area 
will take place here.
  One fundamental question facing the Senate is whether to address 
illegal and legal immigration reform in the same legislation. Though 
the House has thus far chosen this path, I do not think the Senate 
should follow its example. At the very least, we in the Senate ought to 
limit the drastic and unwarranted cuts in legal immigration that appear 
in the legislation passed in the House Committee, and should approach 
the issue of backlogs in family categories with the fairness on which 
we pride ourselves.
  I ask to have printed in the Record an October 23, 1995, editorial in 
the Chicago Tribune entitled ``A Deeply Flawed Immigration Bill.'' The 
editorial aptly notes that while Congress should take decisive and 
quick action to enforce our laws against illegal immigration--such as 
those endorsed on an unprecedented basis by the Clinton administration, 
it ``can approve those without agreeing that legal immigrants are a 
problem in need of such harsh solutions.'' I agree with the Tribune's 
position, and urge my colleagues not to penalize those who have played 
by the rules for the conduct of those who have chosen not to play by 
the rules.
  The editorial follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 23, 1995]

                    A Deeply Flawed Immigration Bill

       Since its creation, the United States has been a country of 
     immigrants that welcomed new immigrants. But if Republicans 
     on the House Judiciary Committee get their way, as they seem 
     likely to do, the welcome will be quite a bit chillier for 
     many foreigners who would like to come here legally and 
     become part of America.
       This is being done partly in the name of combating illegal 
     immigration, which most Americans rightly think is warranted. 
     But the bill being debated in the Judiciary Committee treats 
     both legal and illegal immigrants as undesirable and out of 
     control.
       On illegal immigration, the measure sponsored by Rep. Lamar 
     Smith (R-Tex) has much to recommend it. It authorizes the 
     hiring of more Border Patrol agents and Labor Department 
     inspectors to police the border and the workplace, raises 
     penalties for the use of phony documents, provides money to 
     build fences between the U.S. and Mexico, and streamlines 
     deportation procedures for foreigners who arrive without 
     proper documents.
       It also attempts to crack down on employment of illegals by 
     establishing a telephone registry to let employers verify 
     that new hires are cleared to work. The registry, supposedly 
     a pilot project, is probably too ambitious for a useful 
     experiment, since it would affect all employers in five of 
     the seven states getting the most foreigners--California, 
     Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York, New Jersey and 
     Massachusetts. But a smaller undertaking, as suggested by the 
     Clinton administration, could yield valuable lessons.
       The real problem lies in the proposed treatment of legal 
     immigrants. First, the bill would drastically reduce the 
     number allowed in, cutting the annual intake from 800,000 to 
     fewer than 600,000. This approach presumes that people who 
     come here legally are a burden, instead of the enriching 
     source of renewal they always have been.
       Second, among the categories of people who now get 
     preference in the immigration queue are brothers and sisters, 
     adult children and parents of citizens and legal permanent 
     residents. The Smith bill would eliminate these explicitly or 
     in effect, limiting ``family reunification'' to spouses and 
     minor children of those already here.
       This new priority does not seem misguided. But it can be 
     legitimately criticized on grounds that it would leave in the 
     lurch thousands of people who applied under the old rules and 
     have waited to be admitted--some of them 10 or 15 years.

[[Page S 16635]]

       Barring new applicants in these categories is not 
     unreasonable, but rejecting those already waiting would be 
     callous in the extreme. Yet last week the committee balked at 
     even refunding the $80 application fee these aspiring 
     immigrants have each paid. Slam the door in their face, but 
     only after taking their money--it's not exactly the American 
     way.
       Members of Congress from both parties should have no 
     trouble with the bill's resolute measures to fight illegal 
     immigration. But they can approve those without agreeing that 
     legal immigrants are a problem in need of such harsh 
     solutions.

                          ____________________