|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
< Go back to Immigration Daily [Congressional Record: July 27, 2000 (Senate)]
[Page S7749-S7751]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27jy00-96]
LATINO AND IMMIGRANT FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that
will correct severe injustices affecting thousands of immigrants to the
United States, while at the same time strengthening their ability to
contribute to the U.S. economy and to the struggling economies of their
countries of birth.
A short time ago on the floor of the Senate a unanimous consent
request was made by Senators Kennedy and Harry Reid of Nevada asking
that this legislation, the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, be
brought to the floor for immediate consideration. It is very difficult
to argue that we are so consumed with work in the Chamber of the Senate
that we can't consider this legislation. In fact, we have done precious
little over the last several days because of an honest disagreement
between the leadership on the Democrat and Republican side.
I do believe this legislation should be brought on a timely basis for
the consideration of the Senate. The bill in question is the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act. It has the support of an impressively broad
coalition of groups and individuals, labor unions, business groups,
human rights groups, religious organizations, conservative and
progressive think tanks. Empower America supports this bill as pro-
family and pro-market. The AFL-CIO supports it because it is pro-labor.
The administration is committed to its passage. Perhaps the most
compelling reason for passing this bill is that it embraces the
principles of fairness and justice that are of value to the American
spirit and to the work we do in the Senate.
I recall, when we discuss the issue of immigration, one of my
favorite stories involving President Franklin Roosevelt. President
Roosevelt, of course, came from a somewhat aristocratic family in New
York and was elected President in 1932. As the first Democratic
President in many years, he was invited to speak to the Daughters of
the American Revolution in Washington, DC. Of course, the DAR is an
organization which prides itself on its Yankee heritage and the fact
many have descended from those who came over on the Mayflower. They
have a history of being somewhat skeptical of immigration policy in
this country. When Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the DAR, his opening
words set the tone. He introduced himself by saying: Fellow immigrants,
a reminder to the DAR, a reminder to all of us, with the exception of
Native Americans, who have been here for many centuries, we are all
virtually immigrants to this country.
I am a first generation American. My mother immigrated to this
country at the age of 2 from the country of Lithuania in 1911. My
father's family dates back to before the Revolutionary War, so I really
represent both ends of the spectrum of white immigration to America.
This bill tries to address the basic principles of immigration fairness
and justice which we have tried to hold to during the course of this
Nation's history. I bring particular attention to the Senate to the
plight of immigrants from Central America and Haiti who have been dealt
a severe injustice during the past 20 years, one that would be directly
addressed by this legislation.
In the recent past, thousands of people from Central America and
Haiti have been forced to flee their homes in order to save their lives
and the lives of their families. In Guatemala, hundreds of so-called
``extra-judicial'' killings occurred every year between 1990 and 1995;
entire villages ``disappeared'', most probably massacred. In El
Salvador, political violence was rampant--63,000 people were killed in
the 1980's by a combination of leftist guerrillas, right-wing death
squads, and government military actions. Ironically, an end to twelve
years of civil war did not mean an end to violent internal strife; the
death toll in 1994 was higher than it was during the war. In Honduras,
the Department of State's Human Rights Reports cite ``serious
problems'', including extrajudicial killings, beatings, and a civilian
and military elite that have long operated with impunity. In September
1991, Haiti's democratically-elected government was overthrown in a
violent military coup de'etat that, over a three year period, was
responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings.
Current law creates a highly unworkable patchwork approach to the
status of these immigrants, one that assaults our sense of fair play.
Immigrants from Nicaragua and Cuba who have lived here since 1995 can
obtain green card status in the U.S. through a sensible,
straightforward process. Guatemalans and Salvadorans are covered by a
different, more stringent and cumbersome set of procedures. A select
group of Haitian immigrants are classified under another restrictive
status. Hondurans by yet another. As if this helter-skelter approach
isn't bad enough, existing policies also treat family members of
immigrants--spouses and children--differently depending on where they
live, and under which provision of which law they are covered.
The United States is known around the world as the land of equal
opportunity, but the opportunities we are affording to Central American
and Haitian immigrants who have lived in this country for years are
anything but equal. The current situation is untenable. Why should a
family that has set down firm roots in the United States after fleeing
death squads in Nicaragua be treated differently under the law
[[Page S7750]]
than another family from, say, El Salvador, who left that country for
precisely the same reason. The point was made brutally clear when
Amnesty International documented the case of Santana Chirino Amaya,
deported back to El Salvador and subsequently found decapitated. This,
and many similar stories, led to charges that the U.S. was engaged in a
``systematic practice'' of denying asylum to some nationals, regardless
of the merits of their claims. A class-action lawsuit brought by the
American Baptist Churches and other faith-based organizations on behalf
of Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants made a similar case, and was
eventually settled in favor of those seeking a fairer hearing.
Or consider the plight of Maria Orellana, a war refugee from El
Salvador, who fled the country when soldiers killed two members of her
family. She has lived the past ten years in the United States.
Recently, the INS ordered her deported even though she is eight months
pregnant and even though her husband--himself an immigrant--has legal
status here and expects to soon be sworn in as a U.S. citizen. When a
newspaper reporter asked the INS to comment on Maria's case, the reply
was: ``I don't know why Congress wrote it differently for people of
different countries. We're not in a position to change a law given to
us by Congress . . . we just enforce the law as written.''
Well, the law, in this case, was written badly, and needs to be
fixed. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act would resolve these many
inequities by providing a level playing field on which all immigrants
from this region with similar histories would be treated equally under
the law. And it would address two other issues of great importance to
the immigrant community as well.
The provision to restore Section 245(i) would restore a long-standing
and sensible policy that was unfortunately allowed to lapse in 1997.
Section 245(i) of the Immigration Act had allowed individuals that
qualified for a green card to obtain their visa in the U.S. if they
were already in the country. Without this common-sense provision,
immigrants on the verge of gaining their green card must return to
their home country to obtain their visa. However, the very act of
making such an onerous trip can put their green-card standing in
jeopardy, since other provisions of immigration law prohibit re-entry
to the U.S. under certain circumstances. This has led to ludicrous
situations, like the forced separation of married couples because one
spouse must leave the country to obtain a visa, uncertain as to when
they can be reunited. Restoring the Section 245(i) mechanism to obtain
visas here in the U.S. is a good policy that will help keep families
together and keep willing workers in the U.S. labor force.
Let me add, in my office in Chicago, IL, two-thirds of the casework
we do relates to immigration. We understand the plight of these
families on a personal basis. We meet them in our office, we meet their
friends and relatives, we meet members of their churches who ask why
the laws on immigration in America have to be so unfair and
contradictory. That is why this bill is so important.
The Date of Registry provision is equally important. Undocumented
immigrants seeking permanent residency must demonstrate that they have
lived continuously in the U.S. since the date of registry cut-off. This
amendment updates the date of registry from 1972--almost 30 years of
continuous residency--1986. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act
recognizes that many immigrants have been victimized by confusing and
inconsistent INS policies in the past fifteen years--policies that have
been overturned in numerous court decisions, but that have nonetheless
prevented many immigrants from being granted permanent residency.
Updating the date of registry to 1986 would bring long overdue justice
to the affected populations.
It is worth reviewing the recent history of immigration policy to
understand how we arrived at such a highly convoluted and piecemeal
approach. Prior to the passage of the illegal Immigration Reform and
Responsibility Act in 1996, aliens in the United States could apply for
suspension of deportation and adjustment of status in order to obtain
lawful permanent residence. Suspension of deportation was used to
ameliorate the harsh consequences of deportation for aliens who had
been present in the United States for long periods of time.
In September of 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Responsibility Act. This law retroactively made thousands of
immigrants ineligible for suspension of deportation and left them with
no alternate remedy. The 1996 Act eliminated suspension of deportation
and established a new form of relief entitled cancellation of removal
that required an applicant to accrue ten years of continuous residence
as of date of the initial notice charging the applicant with being
removable.
In 1997, Congress recognized that these new provisions had resulted
in grave injustices to certain groups of people. So in November of
1997, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
INACARA) granted relief to certain citizens of former Soviet block
countries and several Central American countries. This select group of
immigrants were allowed to apply for permanent residence under the old,
pre-IIRRA standards.
Such an alteration of IIRRA made sense. After all, the U.S. had
allowed Central Americans to reside and work here for over a decade,
during which time many of them established families, careers and
community ties. The complex history of civil wars and political
persecution in parts of Central America left thousands of people in
limbo without a place to call home. Many victims of severe persecution
came to the United States with very strong asylum cases, but
unfortunately these individuals have waited so long for a hearing they
will have difficulty proving their cases because they involve incidents
which occurred as early as 1980. In addition, many victims of
persecution never filed for asylum out of fear of denial, and
consequently these people now face claims weakened by years of delay.
Correcting the inequities in current immigration policies is not only
a matter of fundamental fairness, it is good, pragmatic public policy.
The funds sent back by immigrants to their home countries sources of
foreign exchange, and significant stabilizing factors in several
national economies. The immigrant workforce is important to our
national economy as well. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has
frequently cited the threat to our economic well-being posed by an
increasingly tight labor pool, and has gone so far as to suggest that
immigration be uncapped. While these provisions will not remove or
adjust any such caps, it will allow those already here to move freely
in the labor market.
I come to the floor disappointed because the effort for unanimous
consent to bring up the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act was denied.
This is an act which advances justice, keeps families together, and
strengthens the national and international economy. It deserves
unqualified support and rapid passage.
Not that many years ago, immigrants to this country faced an
onslaught of criticism. There were propositions in the State of
California, speeches made by politicians, charges made by groups that
really caused a great deal of fear and concern among those who had
immigrated to this country. It is a stark reminder that, as a nation of
immigrants, we should continue to have a fair and consistent policy of
immigration.
This country opened its doors to my mother, her family, to give her a
chance to leave her land and come to live here. I often think about the
courage involved when their family came together, her mother and three
small children, to get on a boat in Germany to come to a country where
they did not speak a word of the language.
But they heard they had a better opportunity here in America, as many
millions before them and many millions since have heard the same thing.
Should we not in this generation show we are compassionate
conservatives, compassionate moderates, and compassionate liberals when
it comes to immigration fairness? The way to show that, the way to
prove it, is to bring to the floor this legislation as quickly as
possible.
I hope on a bipartisan basis we can have Republicans and Democrats
join in the enactment of this legislation.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S7751]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
 Follow @ilwcom Share this page | Bookmark this page The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |