Replies

Daily Senate Amnesty Update Day 5 PART I

Day 5

The Senate reconvened at 10 am Friday, May 19. Majority Leader Bill Frist announced the night before that no roll call votes would be taken this morning, but asked Senators to avail themselves of the morning session to make whatever statements they wished to make on immigration reform. The session was short on Friday as only two Senators made statements.

Senator Cornyn spoke for a few minutes on the debate over the last week. He responded to criticism from yesterday that his amendment discriminated against poor people by arguing that it was entirely proper for America to prioritize the admission of high-skilled immigrants. Those high-skilled immigrants, he said, would help America stay competitive in the global economy. He said he hoped what is not lost in this debate is the rich heritage immigrants bring to this country.

Senator Sessions gave a long statement on this week's immigration debate. The Senator began by saying he believed the American people had it right on every single issue, including immigration. Last night, he said he heard a member on the floor saying, "we are trying to do something," and that acting was a courageous thing. But, said Senator Sessions, this is the United States Senate. "We are not here just to do something. We are here to confront the big issues of our time." That is our responsibility. He stated that this legislation is unworthy of the United States Senate and that it should never pass. It is not in our national interest. If the bill passes, it would increase the population of the United States between 22% and 66% in over 20 years.

Senator Sessions said the Senate had addressed some important issues this week. One was Senator Isakson's enforcement-first amendment. That should have passed, he said. In 1986, Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform. "It was an amnesty to end all amnesties." But one amnesty begets another amnesty. In the 1986 bill, the amnesty became law just like that, but everything else that required funding and enforcement never occurred. The Isakson amendment sought to require enforcement first. The Salazar amendment that was adopted instead just doesn't cut it.

The Senator continued by saying he was pleased that the Senate had passed the fence amendment-amusingly enough after many Senators changed their votes when they saw it was going to pass. For many months, he said, Senators have been rolling their eyes at the idea of a fence. But when they voted, the fence got 83 votes.

The Senator also described the Bingaman amendment as extremely important. But he added that even with the reduction in the cap on the guest worker program, the bill would still increase the level of immigration to the U.S. by four or five times. He said the Cornyn amendment was also a positive item. He lamented, however, that the Kennedy amendment passed the next day completely gutted it. The Senator also noted that the Ensign amendment on social security was "shockingly rejected" and the Cornyn amendment on funding was thankfully adopted.

"We have made some progress," the Senator concluded. Last week, he said he provided a list of 15 loopholes. Some of them now had been closed. The Senator said he was prepared to negotiate on the remaining issues. He said he was sensitive to good and decent people who want to come here. We don't favor mass deportation, he said. But he added that he doesn't feel the House position is immoral or radical. The Senator said we want immigration to occur, we can even increase it, but it needs to be legal. The American people expect us to create an immigration system that is legal. The Senator argued that it is not right for a few special interest groups to meet with a handful of Senators and then force the agreement upon the Senate.

Senator Sessions described how most of the workers that will come in under this bill will be low-skilled workers. Low-skilled workers, he said, are a net drain on the Treasury. "Have we discussed this with the American people?" he asked. "Have we discussed this in committee? The answer is no." The Senator stated that there has been a concentrated effort to conceal the numbers through the title alone—temporary guest worker program. If we are going to do a comprehensive plan, he said, why don't we consider both the benefits and drawbacks of immigration?

The Senator continued by saying it cannot be the policy of any nation to let in immigrants based solely on the fact that it is good for the immigrant. This is entitlements talk; rights talk. That is, he explained, the notion that someone in another country has a right to come into the U.S., that somehow they are entitled. But there are limits.