[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 162 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13308-S13310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S13308]]
                               DREAM ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts on 
the vote we cast on the DREAM Act. I really believe it was an important 
issue. It went beyond what some might think in that it dealt with some 
issues that are important to America, what we are thinking of as a 
country, and why we need to get the immigration issue correct. We can 
do it. It is something that is important. But once again, we sort of 
fell into the trap of focusing on helping to meet what the needs or 
desires are of people who are here illegally and not focusing on 
restoring the rule of law to immigration enforcement. So I think the 
Senate leadership's commitment to moving this legislation would have 
been a step in exactly the wrong direction. I believe the strong 
bipartisan vote against it indicates that there remains grave concern 
about this kind of amnesty proposal, particularly in light of the fact 
that we have not achieved any significant progress toward enforcement 
of our laws at the border, at the workplace, and in other areas.
  I would just say as a person who has worked on this with some 
determination in the last several years that I have absolutely come to 
believe that if we do a series of things, we can create a lawful system 
of immigration in America. That is important because I think a lot of 
people think it is just not possible, that nothing we do will work. But 
that is not true. If we have a good legal system, if we have a good 
enforcement system at the border, if we make it difficult for people to 
work, eliminate the job magnet and create a work card, an 
identification card that is biometric and can't be easily 
counterfeited, we could see a dramatic return to lawfulness in 
immigration. That would be so good for America. It would so reduce the 
frustration and anger that is out there.
  As I have said before, I don't think people are angry at immigrants, 
although some of the people who support these legislative acts that I 
think have been bad have tried to suggest that the anger which is out 
there among the American people is directed at immigrants. It is really 
directed at us. The American people have been requesting for 30, 40 
years that we create a lawful system of immigration, and Congress has 
continued to stiff them--just refused to do it--and talks about it and 
promises and passes this bill or that bill or this provision or that 
provision, all the time suggesting that these are going to make a 
difference. Then, either we don't fund them adequately, so they never 
really take place, or the bill is a discrete piece of legislation that 
never has much impact on the overall situation we have confronted and 
does not do any significant--does not take us in any significant way 
toward a lawful system.
  I hope this strong vote sends a message that this Senate, prior to 
creating a lawful system of immigration both at our border and in the 
workplace, is not prepared to undertake the huge AgJOBS legislation. 
Senator Reid has said he would bring that up again, but maybe this vote 
will encourage him not to do so.
  The DREAM Act, which we just rejected, would have given, in short 
order, every benefit of citizenship--including citizenship--to 1.3 
million persons. The AgJOBS bill that we keep hearing will be brought 
up will be an additional 3.3 million. So that is a third of the amount 
of people who would be provided the benefits of amnesty, a third of the 
number that was in the bill this summer that the American people 
rejected. The DREAM Act, as I said, would have provided amnesty for 
over 1.3 million, according to the Migration Policy Institute--not a 
conservative group. It would give current illegal aliens a financial 
bonus. They would be eligible for instate tuition, subsidized student 
loans, and Federal work study.
  So if you have a problem with illegality--and I just want to share 
this with my colleagues; these are not insignificant points I am 
making--if you are going to create a lawful system of immigration into 
America, you are going to have to have some sanctions and punishments 
and prosecutions.
  More than that, you absolutely can't give benefits to people who have 
violated our laws, who have gotten past our borders, and then we start 
rewarding them with benefits. So a number of years ago, in 1996, we 
said that if you are a person coming to our country illegally and you 
were illegally here, you at least shouldn't get instate tuition when 
you go to college. You ought to not be in a better position than a 
lawful American who might live a few miles across the State line. That 
was the deciding vote here. This would have reversed that--not only 
that; as I said, it would give them subsidized student loans, Stafford 
loans and other loans, as well as work study benefits. So, as they say, 
if you are in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. If you 
would like to end and reduce illegal immigration, stop rewarding it, 
please. That is what we are talking about.
  So this bill I think went too far in a number of ways. I was actually 
pleased that President Bush's administration analyzed it and strongly 
opposed it and sent us a letter to that effect. So even President Bush, 
who strongly supports immigration into America and has supported a lot 
of the legislation here, opposed this bill. I think they were right in 
doing so.
  I would note that under the DREAM Act, individuals, once they have 
been here 5 years and did 2 years of college without a degree being 
required--they got 2 years of college--they would then be able to bring 
their family members.
  Some say: Well, they were brought here as a young child and through 
no fault of their own, and so they ought to be given the benefits of 
this amnesty. Well, that is not a uniform picture. It does tug at our 
heart strings, and we do care about that. It is something we are going 
to have to deal with sooner or later: how we are going to deal with 
people who came here a long time ago?
  But many people came here at age 15. You only have to be here prior 
to age 15. Maybe they came and lived with their brothers, sisters, 
cousins, aunts and uncles, and then they are immediately put on a path 
to citizenship. They are then able, after that, to become a citizen and 
to bring their parents or maybe the parents are here. They would also 
be able to bring in their wife and children, plus bringing brothers and 
sisters. That is the way the system would work. I think it is not a 
good process. I am pleased the Senate agreed with that.
  I will conclude by making some points about policy and the question 
of the rule of law in our country. If we are serious about securing our 
borders, the first thing you do is stop providing benefits to those who 
come illegally. That is the first and most obvious step we can take. 
The principle is clear: If there are benefits to breaking the law, 
people will continue to do it. When you subsidize something, you get 
more of it. If you subsidize people who are here illegally by giving 
them student loans and in-State tuition, you will encourage that. You 
will also send a message that is even more important--that if you can 
get into America illegally and hold on a few years, you will be 
rewarded in advance of those who are here legally and are waiting in 
line.
  This is an untenable position for our Nation. A nation that wants 
itself to be considered seriously, a nation that respects its laws and 
cares about that must follow through. We cannot abandon our commitment 
to the rule of law. You have to be consistent. That is what sends the 
message that builds respect for the law, and not just in the United 
States, I submit; it would be sending that message and broadcasting 
that message to the world. If we don't do it, the message we are 
broadcasting to the world is that if you can bring, send or assist a 
teenager to come into the United States, the United States will educate 
them all the way through college--and we do that. We don't require you 
to be a legal American citizen to go to schools in Alabama or anyplace 
in America, nor to college. But you are not supposed to get in-State 
tuition if you are here illegally.
  Not only would you be able to carry through with that, but you would 
be able to, in 5 years, get a permanent resident status, a citizenship, 
and then you would be able to bring your family in. That is not the 
right direction, I submit, we should be going in. We don't want to send 
the wrong message.
  The question sort of comes down to, do we have the will to enforce 
our immigration law? Do we have the will to do it? Will we stand on 
principle and law and sound public policy? Or will we allow emotion and 
politics to further erode an already weak immigration

[[Page S13309]]

system and further erode the perception that we are serious about 
creating a lawful system. Passing the DREAM Act today would, in the 
wake of failed comprehensive reform that we had this summer--if we had 
done that before we have been able to secure our borders and before we 
have been able to create a lawful system of immigration, that is not 
the right way for us to go. It is not. It cannot be gotten around. It 
sends the wrong message. It will say we have immigration laws but no 
intent to enforce them. It will send a message that if you break our 
laws, not only will that be forgiven, but you will be put at the head 
of the line and you will be financially rewarded for it.
  That is not what we have to do to create a lawful system. The rule of 
law in this country is important. I was a Federal prosecutor for almost 
15 years. I was attorney general of Alabama. I have worked with law 
enforcement all my professional life. I remember distinctly talking 
with law enforcement officers about the sale of marijuana in 
neighborhoods. Sometimes local police would say: You know, these are 
small amounts of marijuana and we cannot focus on the small cases. We 
only focus on the dealers. That was a mindset a lot of police 
departments had. They discouraged that. I would tell them that, in 
effect, if you take that policy, you have legalized the sale of 
marijuana in that neighborhood. Not only that, you have created an 
unlawful system in that neighborhood and you will have created violence 
and instability that adversely impacts the good and decent people who 
live in that neighborhood. You cannot do that.
  You see, there are moral and legal and practical consequences of 
having a legal system that is not enforced. It adds up. That is what we 
have done in immigration. We have looked the other way and denied it is 
happening, and we have let people with special interests dominate the 
debate and we have talked about making the system lawful, but we have 
never done it. That is why the American people are not happy with us. 
We have not been trustworthy. We have not been reliable. We have not. 
If we would get this system right, we could do a lot better job about 
making it work in an effective way. The American people want us to do 
that.
  I have to tell you, why do people want to come to America? They think 
they can make a better life here. If there has been crime and 
instability and theft and abuse and unfairness in the system that was 
in the place they came from, they feel like if they come to America and 
they have a problem here, they can go to court and they will be 
protected and they can make money and build assets and people will not 
come and steal it from them. They can leave something for their 
children and they can work hard and send their children to college and 
they will be able to do even better. That is why they want to come 
here. It is all founded on the rule of law. The reason we are a unique 
nation--and you know that great hymn that says our liberty is in law--
is that our legal system has made us great, prosperous, and free.

  I don't think it is a good policy that we allow millions of people to 
come to our country in violation of our law. I think that sends a wrong 
message to them and undermines the very legal system that makes the 
country so attractive. I remember in the debate, Senator Grassley, who 
is a direct speaker, a farmer from Iowa and now the ranking member on 
the Finance Committee, made a speech. He said he was here in 1986 as a 
Member of this body. He remembered the debate. During those debates, it 
was said that in 1986 this would be amnesty, but it is the last time, 
we would never do it again. He said: Let me ask you why nobody this 
time, in this debate, a few months ago this summer, is saying we will 
not have anymore amnesty again. Why are people not saying that? He said 
the answer is obvious. If we had amnesty in 1986, and 20 years later we 
have it again, nobody with a straight face can stand up before the 
world or the American people and say that we would not have amnesty 
after this one, that this is going to be the last one. How silly is 
that? We said that a few years ago.
  So this is not a small matter. What principle can you utilize to say 
to a young person, or any other person who came into our country 
illegally today, 10, 15 years from now--what principle can you 
articulate as to why they should not be given amnesty when we gave it 
to people today? You see, this is a matter of seriousness. It cannot be 
ignored. I feel strongly about that. I want my colleagues to know our 
country needs to create a lawful system of immigration. Once that is 
accomplished and the American people feel comfortable about that, we 
can think about a way, I believe, that would be effective and 
compassionate for those who are here today and that is rational and 
that we can defend. I don't believe we can defend that today, when our 
system is not working.
  I see my time has expired. I will wrap up and say I think we did the 
right thing in this vote today. Hopefully, we will continue to work 
toward a lawful system of immigration and, if we do that, a lot of 
things will become possible in the future that are not possible and 
appropriate and should not be done today.
  I ask unanimous consent that a Statement of Administration Policy 
that opposes the DREAM Act, which we rejected a short while ago, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement of Administration Policy--S. 2205, Development--Relief, and 
                 Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007

  The administration continues to believe that the Nation's broken 
immigration system requires comprehensive reform. This reform should 
include strong border and interior enforcement, a temporary worker 
program, a program to bring the millions of undocumented aliens out of 
the shadows without amnesty and without animosity, and assistance that 
helps newcomers assimilate into American society. Unless it provides 
additional authorities in all of these areas, Congress will do little 
more than perpetuate the unfortunate status quo.
  The administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who 
were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the 
United States as home. Any resolution of their status, however, must be 
careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct 
that has brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path 
to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants--
including young people whose parents respected the Nation's immigration 
laws--S. 2205 falls short. The administration therefore opposes the 
bill.
  The primary change wrought by S. 2205 would be to establish a 
preferential path to citizenship for a special class of illegal aliens. 
Specifically, S. 2205 awards permanent status to any illegal alien who 
is under 30, has been in the United States for five years after 
arriving as a child, and has completed two years of college or in the 
uniformed services. This path to citizenship is unavailable to any 
other alien, no matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter 
how much he or she may contribute to American society. Moreover, the 
path that S. 2205 creates would allow illegal aliens to obtain a green 
card before many individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in 
line.
  Sponsors of S. 2205 argue that the bill is necessary in order to give 
children who are illegal aliens incentives to obtain an education. But 
it is difficult to reconcile that professed aim with the bill's 
retroactivity provisions: even those who attended college years earlier 
will be eligible for a green card.
  The legal status that the bill grants its beneficiaries means that 
they can petition almost instantly to bring family members into the 
country. It also places them on the fast track to citizenship because 
they can immediately begin accruing the residence time in the United 
States that is necessary for naturalization. Finally, this legal status 
entitles the bill's beneficiaries to certain welfare benefits within 5 
years.
  The bill is also indiscriminate in whom it would make eligible for 
the program. For example, S. 2205 includes loopholes that would 
authorize permanent status for certain aliens convicted of multiple 
misdemeanors and even felonies.
  The open-ended nature of S. 2205 is objectionable and will inevitably 
lead to large-scale document fraud. The path to citizenship remains 
open for

[[Page S13310]]

decades, thus creating a strong temptation for future illegal aliens to 
purchase fraudulent documents on a burgeoning black market. Moreover, 
the bill's confidentiality provisions are drawn straight from the 1986 
amnesty law and will provide the same haven for fraud and criminality 
as that law did.
  Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people--and of 
this administration--but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive 
and balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the 
future.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 30 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________