[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 40 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2733-S2734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2496. A bill to expand the definition of immediate relative for 
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to 
introduce the Family Reunification Act, a

[[Page S2734]]

measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration 
laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and 
likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently 
able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do 
not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family 
Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor 
siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate 
relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can 
better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them--
the goal of strengthening the family unit.
  Congress took an important first step in promoting family 
reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By 
qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers 
parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain 
immigrant visas to enter the country legally.
  We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, 
a ``glitch'' in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the 
important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of 
families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they 
cannot take full advantage of this family reunification provision.
  Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted 
to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that 
is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that 
simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises because 
minor siblings of U.S. citizens do not qualify as an ``immediate 
relative'' under current law. So, a young man or woman can bring his 
parents into the country, but not his or her 5-year-old brother or 
sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, 
the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United 
States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are 
effectively prevented from coming as well. The result, then, is that we 
are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings 
from the definition of immediate relative.
  For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a 
textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekon Okon, 
both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were 
living in Nigeria, be admitted as ``immediate relatives.'' The law 
clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in 
Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready 
to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her 
husband and sons in the United States because their 6-year-old 
daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' 
Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, 
Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of 
her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.
  It is difficult to determine the exact scope of this problem. Because 
minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland 
Security, DHS, does not keep track of how many families have been 
adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my 
home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, 
DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the 
number reaching into the hundreds each year.
  If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest 
that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous 
cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue 
now, so we can avoid tearing even more families apart.
  Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of 
repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. 
Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to 
obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the 
unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has 
interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The 
legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate 
relatives'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing 
so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to 
reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution 
to an unthinkable problem that too many families have already had to 
face, so I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2496

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVE.

       Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``For 
     purposes of this subsection, a child of a parent of a citizen 
     of the United States shall be considered an immediate 
     relative if the child is accompanying or following to join 
     the parent.'' after ``at least 21 years of age.''.
                                 ______