[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11132-S11133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         IMMIGRATION EDUCATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in a few moments the House and Senate 
conference committee on the immigration bill will meet, and I believe 
we will approve far-reaching reform on immigration by striking out the 
so-called Gallegly amendment, which allows the States to deny public 
education to children who are not legally present in the United States.
  The Gallegly amendment, Mr. President, is fundamentally unfair 
because it is directed at children. It is my view that the children 
ought to have an opportunity for education for many reasons. One reason 
is that if they are to be self-supporting adults, if they are to have 
an acceptable quality of life and become good citizens or residents of 
the United States of America, they need an education. Second, if they 
are not in school, they are going to be on the street, and there will 
be problems of delinquency, there will be problems of juvenile crime.
  The answer is not to exclude illegal alien children from having an 
education, but instead to tighten up the restrictions on illegal 
immigration and to protect our borders. The immigration bill which is 
now pending in the House-Senate conference will be a significant step 
forward in reform, to reform the immigration laws, to protect U.S. 
borders, to provide for expeditious treatment of immigrants who are 
illegally in the United States, to deport those immigrants in 
accordance with our laws.
  It is said that the education of illegal alien children is a magnet 
to draw illegal immigrants into the United States. The answer is not to 
exclude those children from education, but the answer is to protect 
American borders so that the illegal immigrants do not gain access to 
the United States, do not enter the United States, and that children 
are not here, posing a significant problem in terms of their conduct on 
delinquency and crime and in terms of their conduct when they grow to 
adults, assuming they stay in the United States.
  There have been those who say that it ought to be the financial 
responsibility of the Federal Government to pay the cost of education, 
and I am in agreement with that principle, Mr. President. It has been a 
failure of the Federal Government to protect U.S. borders. I think it 
is fair to respond that it ought to be the obligation of the Federal 
Government to pay to educate the illegal alien children that it has 
allowed to enter. However, the answer is not to deny those children 
education while they are in the United States.
  Mr. President, I believe it is very important to make sharp 
distinctions as to how we treat children of illegal immigrants from how 
we deal with the problem of illegal immigration generally. The way to 
deal with the problem of illegal immigration is to protect our borders. 
It is not to deny education to children once they are in the United 
States. Neither is it sound, sensible, or fair to deny citizenship to 
children who are born in the United States to immigrants who have 
illegal status. The hallmark of America, the hallmark of the Statue of 
Liberty, and the hallmark of the melting pot is to respect the status 
of American citizenship of any child born in the United States.

  That is a matter, Mr. President, that I feel particularly strong 
about since both of my parents were immigrants. They both came to the 
United States legally; that is, to the best of my knowledge, 
information, and belief they came legally. My father came from Ukraine 
in 1911--literally walked across Europe, sailed at the bottom of the 
boat, in steerage, to come to America to find an opportunity for 
himself and his children. Harry Specter, my father, didn't know that he 
had a round-trip ticket when he came here--not back to Ukraine but to 
France, and not back to Paris and the Follies Bergere, but to the 
Argonne Forest, where he served in the American expedition forces to 
make the world safe for democracy, with shrapnel in his legs until the 
day he died.
  My mother came with her family as a child of 5 from a small town on 
the Russian-Polish border, I believe with legal immigrant status, 
although I would be hard pressed to prove that my parents were legal 
immigrants if someone were to challenge the status of Arlen Specter as 
a citizen of the United States.
  But when we deal with the problem of illegal immigration, or legal 
immigration, we have to have a very, very sharp focus on what is 
appropriate public policy. The bill in its final form, in my judgment, 
is somewhat too harsh in taking away benefits from legal immigrants and 
denying some benefits to other immigrants. But I think reform is 
necessary, and the compromise that has been worked out is a reasonably 
good compromise, and if we find problems, we can correct them at a 
later date.
  But I want to repeat that it is obnoxious, unfair, and un-American to 
deny U.S. citizenship to anyone born in this county, no matter what 
their status. I am glad that the bill before us does not incorporate 
this proposal.
  The conference report has been held up for a very protracted period 
of time over the Gallegly amendment because there is so much sentiment 
in the Congress that we ought not to deny education to children 
regardless of their immigration status. There has been the threat of a 
veto from the White House. But I think it is highly unlikely that the 
conference report could pass the Senate with the Gallegly amendment in 
it.
  There has been an effort by a variety of amendments to grandfather 
children so that once they are in school, they can complete the 6th 
grade and elementary school or complete high school. There was an 
amendment which

[[Page S11133]]

I had suggested, which I was not really fond of and didn't really think 
was the ultimate solution but a stop-gap measure, to have a mandatory, 
expedited vote in 2\1/2\ years, 30 months after implementation of the 
Gallegly provision, to see the impact of the Gallegly provision on 
delinquency, on education, and on family life, and then a second vote 
at the end of 5 years, 60 months. I felt that the Gallegly amendment 
would, if presented in isolation, be rejected by the Congress, and that 
we would not deny education to children in this country regardless of 
the status of their parents. But I believe, after a lot of 
deliberation, the issue has been resolved.
  I am looking forward to the conference which will start in just a few 
minutes in which we will delete the Gallegly amendment so that the 
States will not have the option to deny education to children 
regardless of their parents' status. We can bring this immigration 
reform bill to the floor, and we can pass it and, I think, have it 
signed into law.
  I thank the Chair. In the absence of any other Senator, Mr. 
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________