[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S1662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. REID. Madam President, we had the opportunity last year to
debate, at great length, immigration. We spent weeks of Senate time on
immigration. I appreciate the concern of those interested in moving
those bills we reported. We knew it was coming. There was a big press
fanfare that these bills were coming.
What we tried to do last year, and there was bipartisan support, we
could not get 60 votes, but we had bipartisan support. We wanted to
make sure our northern and southern borders were secured. That was
where we directed our first attention with our legislation.
We also recognized that all over the country there are issues
relating to the need for temporary workers. There are people who would
say: Well, why would someone from Nevada be concerned about temporary
workers?
Well, the Presiding Officer comes from a State where agriculture is
big. But agriculture in certain parts of the State of Nevada is big. We
are the largest producer of white onions in America; we produce the
largest amounts of garlic, and, of course, huge amounts of alfalfa.
With corn being used so much as it is for the production of
alternative fuel, alfalfa is becoming a very high-quality, very
important product. So we need temporary workers in the farm communities
throughout Nevada, but we also need them, on occasion, with our resort
industry.
So, No. 1, secure our borders, north and south. No. 2, we need to
take a look at guest workers, not in Nevada but the whole country.
There is a need to take a look at them.
Thirdly, our legislation said what are we going to do with the 11 or
12 million people who are here who are undocumented? Our legislation
directed toward that, was it amnesty? Of course not. But what it did
was set up a process that people who were in the country who were
undocumented could come out of the shadows. Would they go to the front
of the line? Of course not. They would go way to the back of the line.
After having paid penalties and fines, learned English, stayed out of
trouble, paid taxes, it seems quite fair, after some 13 years or 14
years, they would be able to have their status readjusted. It is
important we do that. It is very clear we cannot deport 12 million
people. I am not sure--maybe some want to do that, but I think,
realistically, that is not part of what this country is about.
Finally, what we need to do is take a look at what we did in 1986;
that is, we established a new setup for immigration, and it was where
we would have employer sanctions; we shifted it from the Government to
employers. So we had four basic things in our immigration legislation:
Border security, temporary workers, path to legalization, and do
something about employer sanctions that was more meaningful.
This was a good, strong piece of legislation. There were other things
in that. But those were the four main parts. So I would hope this
legislation, which was supported by the President, is legislation we
could move forward on at some time.
Everyone has a right to offer whatever legislation they wish to
offer. I acknowledge that. But I would think that rather than trying to
piecemeal this legislation with little bits and pieces here, as
everyone knows, if anything to do with immigration comes to the floor,
other people who are concerned about certain aspects of border
security--temporary workers, pathway to legalization, employer
sanctions--would offer amendments.
The difficulty we have had getting bills to the floor and having
legislation proceed has been very difficult. So I wanted everyone to
know this legislation which was brought to the Senate today, and as I
repeat, with great fanfare, big press events, if people want to do
something about legislation on immigration, I do not think this is the
right way to go. I hope the American public sees this for what it is.
____________________