[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5802-5805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 14 years ago, when I was the U.S. 
Secretary of Education, I received an invitation to the annual Italian-
American dinner in Washington, DC. To tell the truth, I really didn't 
want to go because there are lots of dinners in Washington, DC, and the 
hours were long when I was working in the President's Cabinet. I wanted 
to stay home with my wife and children. But that year, 1992, the dinner 
was in honor of my law school roommate, Paul Tagliabue, who is known to 
most Americans as the commissioner of the National Football League and 
the person who likely will be presiding over his last NFL draft this 
weekend.
  So I decided I would go to this one more long, I expected, 
Washington, DC, dinner in honor of my friend Paul Tagliabue. When I got 
there, the place was bursting with enthusiasm. Nobody could have 
doubted that it was the Italian-American dinner. Italian-ness was 
everywhere. Stallone was there, Pelosi was there, Justice Scalia was 
there and, of course, the National Football League commissioner Paul 
Tagliabue was there. It was wonderful, and I was delighted that I went.
  The room was filled with emotion. But the reason I tell this story is 
that the height of emotion on that emotional evening was when everybody 
in the room paused, put their hands over their hearts, and said the 
Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag and sang ``The Star-Spangled 
Banner.'' There were a lot of tears at that moment. The point of it is 
that in that room of people who were so proud of the country of Italy, 
from where they had come or their parents or grandparents had come, and 
there was no mistaking that they were proud to be from Italy, but they 
were prouder to be American.
  I mention that because this week we will begin to discuss immigration 
again. I believe we are missing the fundamental issue in the 
immigration debate. Of course, border security is important. Of course, 
a proper allocation of temporary students and temporary workers is 
important. There will be a lot of debate about what defines amnesty in 
any sort of legislation. But I believe the real underlying emotion in 
the immigration debate, the part that we are missing, is the question 
of how many new men and women can we absorb at one time in this 
country. How many men and women can come into this country and become 
Americans and accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? I 
believe what underlies a lot of the emotion, a lot of the concern about 
the debate we are having, is that Americans are afraid that we may be 
exceeding that limit. They want to make certain that almost all of 
those who come to live here expect sooner or later to become Americans, 
to accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  My rough calculation is that, in a country of about 300 million 
people who live in the United States of America today, about 10 percent 
of us are not citizens of the United States.
  We have about 570,000 students from other countries. They are welcome 
here. They help improve our standard of living while they are working 
here, and when they go home, they usually spread our values better than 
any foreign aid we have ever passed.
  We have about 500,000 temporary workers of one kind or another who 
are important to our free market system.
  We have 11.6 million permanent legal residents, people with so-called 
green cards, some of whom are on their way to becoming citizens. But an 
increasing number of them are not electing to become citizens of the 
United States.
  Then we have 10 million or 12 million people who are illegally here. 
They are here mostly to work. Some estimates are that they comprise 
about 5 percent of our workforce.
  So, all in all, that is probably more or less 30 million people of 
the 300 million of us who live here who are not citizens of the United 
States, and there are another 2 or 3 percent of us who are dual 
citizens, citizens of the United States and of another country.
  An important part of this debate is, how many is too many?
  We know the benefits of immigration in the United States of America. 
We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and we say that proudly. That 
spunk, bravery, and courage that caused people to come and still come 
to our country has defined our character. No other country in the world 
believes anything is possible, that anyone of any background can rise 
to the top.
  My grandfather, who was a railroad engineer, used to say: Aim for the 
top, there is more room there. Most people think that is a silly 
statement. But we don't. That is an essential part of the American 
character. A lot of it comes from being a nation of immigrants. The 
diversity that comes into our country because of immigration makes our 
country more interesting. I once heard Robert Mondavi, the famous 
California winemaker, say that--and excuse me in Iowa for saying this--
20 years ago we could not get a good meal in Des Moines, and into Des 
Moines came people from different cultures and different countries, and 
they brought their own recipes. And what makes the food so good today 
in Des Moines, said Mr. Mondavi, is not that one was an Indian dish or 
a Sri Lankan dish or a French dish or a Colombian dish, but they mixed 
it together and created an American cuisine.
  The diversity brought to us by people regularly coming to our country 
makes a difference. And then the patriotism that comes from those who 
become new citizens enriches us. Our most patriotic citizens are often 
those who have just become citizens, reminding those of us who have 
been here, as our family has for seven, eight, nine generations, that 
it is nothing to be taken for granted. As our population growth reduces 
in this country, and in our free market system as we produce a 
disproportionate number of the new jobs here, we find new workers 
coming into our country, whether they are skilled workers helping to 
win new jobs or win Nobel Prizes or whether they are unskilled workers 
who add to our free market system.
  We know the value of immigration to the United States. We know two 
other things as well. One is that those who come here expect to come to 
a nation that honors the rule of law. In many cases, immigrants have 
come here fleeing a nation that didn't have rule of law, where you 
might be ordered to this place by the whim of a dictator or a potentate 
or someone who was above the law. That is what most people are fleeing 
from--nations and countries without the rule of law. It is important 
that we honor the rule of law here.
  New Americans, new people who come to live here understand very well

[[Page 5803]]

that they have the freedom to drive across State lines, but they cannot 
run a stop sign. They have the freedom to make contracts with whom they 
please, but they have to keep the contract. They have a second 
amendment right to own a gun, but they cannot shoot anybody. This is a 
nation that honors the rule of law, and new immigrants and those who 
are already here understand that.
  The other thing is that new people coming into our country for the 
most part understand as well as we do, those of us who are already 
here, that we are a nation based upon an idea. We are not a tribe. We 
are not a racial culture. Our ancestry isn't what's most important to 
us. What matters to us most is the motto that is engraved in stone 
above the Presiding Officer's desk, ``E Pluribus Unum''--from many, 
one. This country's most magnificent accomplishment is that we have 
taken people from all different parts of the world and turned this into 
one Nation. We have done this by insisting that new citizens become 
Americans.
  Becoming American--those two words have always been serious business 
in this country. In Valley Forge in 1778, as I mentioned on this floor 
several times, George Washington and his officers took an oath whereby 
they renounced their allegiance to their former ruler--King George 
III--and pledged their allegiance to this new country. Ever since 
then--since 1795 at least--the oath of allegiance that new citizens 
have taken has been essentially the oath of allegiance that George 
Washington and his officers took. They didn't renounce--in the case of 
those at the Italian-American dinner--their Italian-ness; they are 
proud of that. But they renounce loyalty to the Italian government and 
pledge allegiance to this country. They are clear about that, and we 
have been clear about that for more than 200 years.
  When we have large numbers of new people coming into our country, as 
we did just 100 years ago, which was the last time we had such a large 
percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States, we went 
to great efforts to try to help them become Americans. Albert Shanker, 
the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said in 
a meeting in Rochester, which I attended, that the common school, our 
public school, was created primarily for the purpose of helping 
immigrant children learn the three Rs--reading, writing, and 
arithmetic--and what it meant to be an American, with the hope they 
would go home and teach their parents. The common school was an 
``Americanizing'' institution. So was Ford Motor Company 100 years ago, 
as were many businesses.
  Robert Putnam, in his book ``Bowling Alone,'' talked about how in 
this country civic associations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 
Boys and Girls Club, and Rotary Club were all set up with the idea of 
reminding ourselves--those who are already here--to help new people 
coming into our country learn what it means to become an American, to 
learn our common language, learn our history, and to learn the 
principles that unite us as a country.
  Other countries now are looking at the American experience and 
wishing they had some of it. Last year, France and England experienced 
great difficulties with the bombing in the London subways and the riots 
in France. What was it about? It was about people who had come from 
other countries to live in France and England and who didn't feel part 
of the country. They wanted to feel French; they wanted to feel 
English. People are starting to think--how do you become French or 
English or German, when 5 or 6 years ago you had to be the son or 
daughter of a German in order to be a German. How do you become 
Japanese or Chinese? That is a foreign concept in most countries. It is 
hard to become German or French or Japanese.
  But to become a citizen of the United States, you must become an 
American. We don't want to lose that. That should be the central focus 
of any immigration debate on the floor of the Senate.
  I was in Rome last week, and I visited with our Ambassador to Rome, 
who is the grandson of an Italian immigrant. He said they have formed a 
council there in Italy to try to deal with the problem of how do you 
become Italian because Italy needs more people. It has a population of 
58 million, the second lowest birth rate in Europe, the largest 
percentage of elderly, 2.9 million legal immigrants, over 500,000 
illegal immigrants, increasingly Muslim. A large number of Muslims--1.5 
million--who live there don't feel they are a part of Italy. If Italy 
doesn't have people coming from other countries, the number of people 
who live in Italy will go down and down and so will their economy. They 
formed a council in Italy. Four people who were Muslims and who live in 
Italy were sent to the United States, and one who came back--a woman 
from Algeria who came to Italy when she was 14 and is now 30--said to 
our Ambassador to Italy: For the first time, I feel Italian. He asked 
why. She said: When I went to America, the Muslims I met there felt 
American. They may be against the war in Iraq, but they all thought of 
themselves first as Americans.
  That is a concept which we don't dare lose. All of us know that the 
importance of becoming American has been gradually diminishing in our 
culture, especially since the 1960s. Our schools don't teach U.S. 
History in the way they once did and in the way they should. In fact, 
the lowest score our high school seniors have on national tests is not 
in math, not in science, it is in U.S. History. Our colleges don't 
require a course in U.S. History. Our colleges of education don't turn 
out very many teachers of U.S. History.
  In an age of globalization, some people say, well, nationality 
doesn't really make much difference.
  Increasingly, official business in States and counties is conducted 
in more than our common language, English. Even some of our political 
leaders extol diversity over unity. They extol the pluribus over the 
unum.
  Make no mistake, diversity is important to the United States. It is a 
great advantage to us, but diversity is not our greatest strength. 
Jerusalem is diverse. Iraq is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Our 
most magnificent accomplishment and greatest strength, and one we 
should not forget during this debate, is that we have taken all this 
diversity and formed it into one nation.
  That is why I was pleased to see that the Senate adopted, before the 
immigration bill got off track, an amendment I proposed with a number 
of other Senators that would help prospective citizens become 
Americans. It would do it in a number of ways.
  In the first place, it would raise to the level of law George 
Washington's oath, slightly rewritten, the same oath that a half 
million to a million new citizens have taken every year, an oath that 
recognizes that someone has waited that 5 years, learned English to an 
eighth-grade level, passed a test in our history, demonstrated their 
good character, and said: I foreswear allegiance from where I came, and 
I pledge allegiance to the United States.
  The amendment, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, would also 
create grants to prospective citizens who needed help learning English. 
It would reduce from 5 years to 4 years the amount of time you need to 
wait to become a citizen if you were fluent in English. That is a level 
higher than eighth grade. It would create a foundation to help with 
grants to encourage the teaching of civics and English in the same way 
that we did throughout civic organizations 100 years ago in this 
country.
  In addition, we should also look carefully at other parts of what we 
do in our Government. We should have more support for English as a 
second language in the schools. We should not have waiting lines of 
adults who want to learn English in this country, our common language. 
People want to learn it. We should help them.
  We should have more summer academies for outstanding teachers and 
students of American history and civics. This Congress approved that 
for the first time last year. We will have two this summer. We should 
have many more. And we should do more teaching

[[Page 5804]]

through the traditional American history program that Senator Byrd and 
others put into the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Those things do cost money, but in a $2.6 trillion budget, surely we 
can find something to take out so we can put those things in because 
nothing, I submit, is more important than making sure our children know 
what it means to be an American and to know that our new citizens do as 
well.
  I am here today to remind myself and my colleagues of that story of 
my visit to the Italian-American dinner 14 years ago. I wish every 
Member of the Senate could have been there. I wish they could have seen 
the pride in the Italian-ness of all there to honor Paul Tagliabue, 
Justice Scalia, now the ranking Democrat in the House Nancy Pelosi, and 
Sylvester Stallone. It is important to be reminded that in that room, 
the greatest emotion was for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United 
States of America. They may be proud of where they came from, but they 
are prouder of where they have come.
  I will ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed, one 
entitled ``Citizenship is the Key'' by Noah Pickus, who is the 
associate director of the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University 
and who writes about the importance of hometown associations in the 
United States that link immigrants to their native community and 
culture while serving as a vehicle for engagement with American 
society.
  He says:

       All of these approaches--new citizenship processes, new 
     structures and strategies for incorporation and new 
     coalitions--can focus our attention on the important and 
     difficult work of building a nation here at home.

  And secondly, an article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal about the 
teacher Christine Byrd who teaches children in Memphis who don't know 
English, our common language of English, and she wrote down what 
immigrant children have told her about their first impressions of 
America. It reminds us of the strength and vitality of new people 
coming here.
  ``You can take a shower with hot and cold water running at the same 
time,'' said a third grader from Sudan.
  ``You can have a fluffy towel to dry after a shower,'' said a first 
grader from Nigeria.
  ``You can go to school for free,'' said a student from Vietnam.
  ``You can go to a pet store and buy a pet,'' said a student from 
China.
  ``You can be rescued by the [Transportation Department] on the 
freeway,'' said a student from Vietnam.
  ``You can have ice cream any time you want,'' said a student from 
China.
  I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From Newsday, Apr. 9, 2006]

                         Citizenship is the Key

                            (By Noah Pickus)

       Citizenship has become the most controversial element in 
     current immigration reform. The House has passed an 
     ``enforcement-first'' bill that would effectively preclude 
     citizenship for illegal immigrants or foreign workers, and 
     the Senate is grappling with various proposals that could 
     legalize the status of some or all illegal immigrants who are 
     already in the United States and create new guest-worker 
     programs.
       The key issue this legislation faces whenever it finally 
     gets to a conference committee will be whether illegal 
     immigrants or guest workers should be allowed to apply for 
     citizenship and under what conditions.
       This attention to citizenship is surprising, given that 
     most of the public debate has turned on questions of 
     economics, security and border enforcement. It also marks a 
     significant break from the last major debate over illegal 
     workers, the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act. Then, 
     advocates for amnesty pressed for legal status, not 
     citizenship, arguing that the latter was passe in a global 
     world and that illegal immigrants' economic and social ties 
     demanded full legal recognition.
       More recently, Mexican President Vicente Fox has said that 
     Mexicans in the United States are ``not going to become 
     American citizens, nor do they want U.S. citizenship. What 
     they are interested in is having their rights respected.'' In 
     this, he has been joined by business interests whose primary 
     goal is to secure a steady stream of low-wage workers.
       Whether legalization or guest worker programs are a good 
     idea will rightfully be the subject of much debate in the 
     coming weeks. But if we are to have them, it is critical to 
     ensure that citizenship rather than merely legal status or 
     labor eligibility is our common goal.
       Most Americans don't favor temporary guest worker programs 
     or simple amnesty programs. They want immigrants who work 
     hard and have put down roots to further invest in creating 
     stable neighborhoods and manageable schools, and in becoming 
     American. By contrast, even if a temporary worker program 
     operated effectively, it would create large numbers of 
     immigrants who are, by definition, transient.
       If, as seems likely, workers who put down ties in a 
     community don't go home at the end of their work permit, we 
     are creating the conditions for continued social disorder. If 
     citizenship is not a realistic goal for illegal immigrants 
     who have been in the United States for some time, or for 
     future guest workers, we risk creating the same 
     disenfranchised underclass of immigrants that is roiling 
     Europe.
       As important as a pathway to citizenship is, though, 
     building a common sense of citizenship and identity will 
     require an active commitment on the part of both immigrants 
     and citizens.
       Our naturalization process needs to offer a real 
     opportunity for civic learning and social cohesion. The 
     process now is characterized by frustrated administrators, 
     poorly funded providers of civic and English classes, 
     doubtful citizens and, most especially, confused and worried 
     immigrants. (Although little noticed, one part of the current 
     immigration reform bill would establish a foundation to 
     support the activities of the Office of Citizenship and 
     provide grants for organizations to offer civics, history and 
     English courses.)
       We also need to learn from past integration efforts that 
     instruction in lofty principles isn't sufficient to 
     incorporate newcomers. Immigrants need structures and 
     strategies for negotiating the often bewildering challenges 
     of making a new life in a new place.
       One hundred years ago, during the last major wave of 
     immigration, Jane Addams understood how poor, uneducated 
     immigrants had to be enticed into the public realm by 
     appealing to their pressing private concerns. She recognized 
     that domestic issues of child care, nutrition and housing had 
     to be linked to broader lessons about personal and social 
     responsibility.
       This approach is needed again today, especially in bridging 
     the gap between immigrant and native-born communities. For at 
     least the last decade or so, Americans have been worrying 
     about the erosion of community ties, civic institutions and 
     social trust. What has been too easily overlooked in these 
     debates is that there are sources of social capital even in 
     beleaguered immigrant communities.
       There are, for instance, more than 1,500 hometown 
     associations in the United States that link immigrants to 
     their native community and culture while serving as vehicle 
     for engagement with American society. If American civic 
     groups joined forces with these associations, they could turn 
     a legalization program into an integration movement. Instead 
     of treating legalization as evidence of our inability to 
     control our borders, they could use it as a vehicle for 
     building coalitions in support of a common citizenship.
       All of these approaches--new citizenship processes, new 
     structures and strategies for incorporation and new 
     coalitions--can focus our attention on the important and 
     difficult work of building a nation here at home.
                                  ____


      With English as Their Second Language, Relating Comes First

              (By Ruma Banerji Kumar and Halimah Abdullah)

       Apr. 11, 2006.--Christine Byrd started speaking gibberish.
       That's what it sounded like to the 15 or so teachers who 
     were in a training session with her on a recent Friday.
       Byrd was actually speaking Vietnamese. She asked the group 
     simple questions: their names, the date.
       The teachers started feeling uneasy. Some began to write 
     nervously on paper, randomly guessing at what she was asking 
     of them. Others stared blankly.
       Byrd works in the Memphis city school office that trains 
     and supervises teachers working with foreign-language 
     speaking students. She had just taught the group a key 
     lesson: how it feels to be an immigrant child in a foreign 
     place.
       ``When you don't understand the language spoken all around 
     you, you don't have any foothold,'' said Byrd's supervisor, 
     Andrew Duck. ``You're hearing sounds, but you're not able to 
     relate them to anything. It causes a little bit of fear, 
     uneasiness.''
       To drive the lesson home, Byrd also shared with teachers a 
     diary she's kept of what immigrant children have told her 
     about their first impressions of America. It's an account she 
     has collected over the past decade.
       The children use simple words.
       They are grateful for basic opportunities.
       Understanding that mindset, Byrd says, will help teachers 
     meet the needs of students who are sometimes enigmas to them.
       The words of the children take on particular significance 
     this week, as an estimated 1 million immigrants rally across 
     the country for reform in the way the law classifies and 
     treats those who enter American borders illegally.

[[Page 5805]]

       Byrd's journal is called ``Only in America.'' Here is what 
     some students say they can do only in America:
       ``You can take a shower with hot and cold water running at 
     the same time.''--Third-grader from Sudan, Treadwell 
     Elementary.
       ``You can have a fluffy towel to dry after a shower.''--
     First-grader from Nigeria, Treadwell Elementary.
       ``You can go to school for free.''--Student from Vietnam, 
     Treadwell Elementary.
       ``You can go to a pet store and buy a pet.''--Student from 
     China, Treadwell Elementary.
       ``You can have free transportation to school.''--Student 
     from Sudan, Treadwell Elementary.
       ``You can be rescued by TDOT on the freeway.''--Student 
     from Vietnam, Bellevue Junior High.
       ``You can have ice cream anytime you want.''--Student from 
     China, Bellevue Junior High.
       ``You can wash clothes anytime you want.''--Student from 
     Sudan, Treadwell Elementary.
       ``You can go to church every Sunday.''--A student from 
     China, Central High.
       ``You can raise million dollars to help the victims of 9/
     11.''--Vietnamese student, Central High.
       ``You can travel at night and not be afraid of running out 
     of gas and foods.''--Student from West Africa, Central High.
       ``You can travel anywhere at anytime and not have to ask 
     for permission.''--Vietnamese student, Central High.
       ``You can vote for anybody you want.''--Student from Sudan, 
     Central High.
       ``Women can vote.''--Student from Afghanistan, Central 
     High.
       ``Women can have her baby at the hospital without her 
     husband's blessing.''--Student from Iraq, Central High.
       ``You can own 3 or more televisions, a house and 1 to 2 
     cars at the same time.''--Student from Vietnam, Bruce 
     Elementary.
       ``You can go to a Pet Bakery Shop and buy a cookie for your 
     pet''--Student from Vietnam, Bruce Elementary.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the whip. I have three or four 
remarks on another subject.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am in no hurry.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the whip. May I be granted time to finish my 
remarks?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized 
for 3 minutes.

                          ____________________