[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8599-S8600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
indulgence. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to the 
issue before the Senate today.
  The debate over immigration has been a contentious one. Soon we are 
going to come to that moment of truth when we all have the opportunity 
to cast a vote either for or against the so-called ``grand bargain'' 
that is before the Senate. Most of us are going to make that vote 
formed by our own experiences, formed by our conscience, formed by our 
constituents, and like so many others in this Chamber, those are all 
factors that come into play and influence the way that I view this very 
important and serious issue.
  In fact, to speak to some of the experiences I have had, it was not 
too long ago I was in a supermarket in my home State of South Dakota in 
Sioux Falls. I was approached by someone who was working there who had 
asked me to help with a problem. It turns out he was in this country, 
and his wife had been here illegally. They had a child here. The child, 
therefore, is a citizen. His wife determined that she wanted to be 
legal. So she left this country and went back home and decided to come 
here through a legal mechanism. That was a year ago. For the past year, 
she has been trying to come back to this country legally. I have been 
working with her. They have to first get an immigrant waiver and then 
ultimately go through the process where she can come into this country 
and come legally.
  I make that point because I believe it is very relevant to the debate 
we are having on the floor of the Senate. If this woman who wanted to 
do the right thing and decided to go back because she wanted to come 
into the United States of America legally--she didn't want to be here 
illegally--had just stayed here, under this bill, she could become 
legalized. What does that say to all the people such as her who are 
trying to follow the laws, who are trying to play by the rules we have 
created?
  That is one episode, one example, as I look at this debate and think 
about the consequences for those who have played by the rules, those 
who follow our laws, those who observe the rule of law in America, how 
it forms the way I view this issue.
  We have been told throughout this debate that this is the best 
compromise

[[Page S8600]]

that can be achieved and, after all, isn't compromise the essence of 
what the Senate is all about, is coming to a consensus after a long 
debate? The difference with this grand bargain is that the die was cast 
long before the debate began. The process whereby this bill came to the 
floor bypassed the regular order, and its outcome has been ordained by 
the grand bargainers to prevent amendments that might actually improve 
the bill from becoming part of the solution to America's broken 
immigration system.
  Opposing the underlying bill or proposing amendments to improve it 
has led to labels such as anti-immigrant or nativist or xenophobic. I 
am none of the above. It is not anti-immigrant to be for the rule of 
law. It is not nativist to be for enforcing America's laws. And it is 
not xenophobic to believe that those who come to America should come 
here legally.
  America has a long tradition as a welcoming nation. I am a product of 
that tradition. In 1906, two Norwegian brothers named Nicolai and 
Matthew Gjelsvik came to America from Norway. The only English they 
knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee,'' which evidently they 
learned on the way over.
  When they arrived at Ellis Island, the immigration officials 
determined that their given name would be too difficult to spell and 
pronounce for people in this country so they asked them to change it. 
G-j-e-l-s-v-i-k was how they spelled it. They picked the name of the 
farm where they worked near Bergin, Norway, which was called the Thune 
Farm. So Nicolai Gjelsvik became Nick Thune, my grandfather.
  Then, as now, there was a great demand in America's economy for 
workers. They went to work on the transcontinental railroad doing hard 
manual labor. they learned English and made enough to start a small 
merchandising company which subsequently became a hardware store that 
to this day bears their name. They came here for the opportunity that 
America offered--the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to 
fail.
  Their story has been duplicated millions and millions of times over 
and continues today. Millions and millions of Americans came here from 
other places, but they came here legally. I support them and the 
millions more who are still to come. You see, you can be pro-
immigration and pro rule of law. The two are not mutually exclusive. 
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate violates that bedrock 
American distinction of the rule of law. Under this bill, somewhere 
between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants will be immediately 
legalized.

  Ironically, it is that very rule of law that serves as a magnet that 
attracts people to America. The reason America's economy is the most 
prosperous in the world is its foundation is in the rule of law. 
Concepts such as legal certainty, private property rights, and an 
independent judiciary provide the framework for the most successful 
economy in the history of civilization. It doesn't happen by 
happenstance. It happens because the rule of law is an inviolable 
principle of American democracy.
  The solution to America's broken immigration system is really quite 
simple: Enforce the laws in the workplace and enforce the laws at the 
border. Sacrificing America's most basic foundational principle in the 
interest of a short-term fix betrays the belief of the millions who are 
here legally and the millions more to come that America is different 
because here the rule of law matters.
  President Ronald Reagan once said that a nation that ``can't control 
its own borders can't control its destiny.'' We are a country, we are a 
nation. We need the strong border security measures in this bill, and 
we need the strong workplace verification measures in this bill, but 
the immediate legalization of 12 million people is a bridge too far.
  It contradicts one of the great ideals of our democracy and sends 
wrong and conflicting signals to those who are here currently and those 
who will come in the future. The demand for workers in America can be 
met when those here illegally go back and return through legal channels 
or when they are replaced by those who wait to come legally. This bill 
is the wrong solution, and I believe and I hope that the Senate will 
reject it.
  We can get a good immigration bill, a solid immigration bill that 
secures the border, that deals with the issue of workplace 
verification, and it sends the right message to those who are waiting 
to come to America that America is a nation, a welcoming nation, a 
nation that is pro-immigration, but a nation that fundamentally 
respects its great tradition as a nation that is based upon the rule of 
law.
  I hope my colleagues, as they consider how they will vote tomorrow on 
these important votes, will think about the importance of that 
tradition of the rule of law, the importance of the message we send to 
those who have observed our laws, such as the lady I mentioned whose 
husband is in Sioux Falls, SD, and she hopes to come back to our great 
country and to our State. She made a fundamental decision that she was 
going to play by the rules, she was going to follow the laws. There are 
so many like her. What we want to do is send a message that people like 
her are welcome here, people who follow our laws. We don't want to 
reward those who come here illegally. I believe on a most basic level 
that is what the legislation before the Senate does.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these important votes 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________