[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2148-E2149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2267, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSE E. SERRANO

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 29, 1997

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct conferees and in strong support of immigrants' rights. I 
believe family reunification should be one of the highest priorities of 
our immigration policy and that the process of naturalization of legal 
residents needs to be more efficient. Letting 245(i) sunset would be 
morally wrong and economically unwise. It would separate thousands of 
families and disrupt thousands of businesses. Furthermore letting 
245(i) sunset is not fiscally sound. The receipts from the penalty fee 
help pay for important INS activities.
  Mr. Speaker, 245(i) is not amnesty. It does not reward those who 
purposefully broke our laws. Instead, it is for people who are 
sponsored by close family members or by employers who cannot find 
eligible U.S. workers, and whose ``priority date'' is current under 
existing quotas. It does not change the order in which a person's claim 
is adjudicated. In short, section 245(i) allows business to keep valued 
employees and allows families to stay together.
  It is just inhumane to force immigrants who have families in this 
country to leave the U.S. and to apply and wait for their visas in a 
foreign country. This instills fear and promotes division of immigrant 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is not really about fighting illegal 
immigration. This is just another attempt by some members on the other 
side of the aisle to sharply restrict or even eliminate immigration to 
the United States. Republican members claim they uphold family values. 
But when it comes to poor families and immigrant families, Republicans 
have demonstrated time and again that they want to make it more 
difficult for immigrants who have been living, working, and paying 
taxes in this country to reunite with their loved ones.
  A policy which divides thousands of families of U.S. citizens and 
legal residents seems preposterous at a time when family unification

[[Page E2149]]

and family values are a strong concern of the American people.
  Immigrants have contributed to the wealth and success of this nation. 
They are an asset to our nation. I have in the past supported measures 
aimed at removing barriers to legal immigration and I will continue to 
do so. I voted for the Family Unity and Employment Opportunity Act of 
1990 (P.L. 101-649), the first comprehensive revision of U.S. 
immigration policy since 1965, which was signed into law by President 
Bush on November 29, 1990, and which made long-overdue improvements 
with regard to the admission into the United States of family members 
of legal residents and highly skilled professionals.
  Similarly, last year I voted against H.R. 2202, the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1996, because many of the provisions of the 
immigration ``reform'' of 1996 are simply wrong and, furthermore, we 
have little to fear from people immigrating. Immigrants come to our 
country to escape the hardships of war and political persecution or to 
work to improve their lives and those of their families.
  We, in turn, benefit from the cultural diversity their inclusion 
brings to our society and the boost their working, spending, and paying 
taxes bring to our economy. New York City has been revitalized by 
newcomers to America.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to put politics aside and do justice 
for these hard working, tax paying, law-abiding people. Vote no on the 
motion to instruct.

                          ____________________