Webb Calls for Fair and Workable Immigration PolicyFloor Remarks
June 27, 2007
Washington, DC ? Below are remarks delivered by Senator Webb on the Senate floor today with respect to his amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill:
For audio of Senator Webb?s remarks, please go to: http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/webb/webb070627.mp3
Mr. President, I would like to just take a few minutes this morning. I would like to address the motivations that I have behind the amendment I?ve introduced and express my hopes that our colleagues will support this amendment. I have offered this amendment in the hopes of helping to save the vote on this bill. I am well aware that there are a number of people in this body who would like to see this bill go down the tubes. I do not share that sentiment.
There is a lot of good in this bill. We were given a briefing card yesterday which outlines the positive aspects in this piece of legislation. It will go a long way toward toughening border security. It will in a measurable way toughen employer sanctions. It will create a program that, in my view, is a proper way to deal with the guest worker issue.The difficulty that I have in the present legislation, and the reason that I have introduced my amendment, is that the issue of legalization goes to the notion of fairness in terms of how the laws of the United States are applied. The second problem I have with this bill is the issue of practicality when you look at what are called the touch-back provisions.
We do have, by all estimates, between 12 and 20 million people who are here without papers. We need to be able to say, openly and honestly, that the situation that these people are in is a result of the fact that they are here in contradiction to American Law. The average American believes very strongly in the notion of fairness when it comes to how we enforce our laws. Of those 12 million to 20 million people, as I have said for more than a year, there is a significant number who have during a period of lax immigration laws, come to this country, become part of their community, put down roots, and deserve a path toward citizenship, toward legalizing their status and toward citizenship. But to draw the line arbitrarily at the end of last year to include every single person, with a few exceptions, who was here in this country as of the end of last year. I think violates the notion of fairness among a lot of people in this country, and it?s one of the reasons why we have had such a strong surge of resentment toward the legislation as it now exists.
Under my proposal, those who have lived in the United States for at least four years prior to the enactment of the bill can apply to legalize their status. And I would like to point out that a year ago, people in this body were agreeing to a five-year residency requirement. This bill is more generous than the legislation that a lot of people in this body and also immigrants? rights groups were supporting a year ago. We then would move into objective measurable criteria which would demonstrate that the people who were applying have actually put roots down in their community, through work history, through payment of federal and state income taxes, knowledge of English, and immediate family members in the United States. These are not all inclusive. They are the sorts of criteria which would help to advance the legalization process.
I believe this is fair. I believe that people in this country who traditionally would be supporting fair immigration policies but who are worried about the legalization process in this bill would come forward and support this, and we need that support in this country, if we actually are going to resolve this problem and move forward.
The second part of this amendment goes to the practicality of the present legislation. It strikes the bill?s unrealistic touch-back requirement. For those who meet the test of having roots in their community and move forward, it removes the requirement that they have to go back to their country of origin in order to apply for legal status. We know the difficulty that a lot of families would have if their principal breadwinner had to leave his or her employment, go back to Manila or wherever, file papers, leave the family here, and interrupt their job. That?s simply impractical. In many ways it is a totally unnecessary obstacle.
So this bill would reduce the scope of people who were allowed legalization to those who have put down roots in their communities in a very fair way that I think Americans will understand, but also will remove the unnecessary impediment of requiring people to go back to their country of origin. I?ve heard loud and clear from not only Virginians but across this country when I?ve talked to people about this issue over the past couple of years that this congress should find a fair system that on the one hand, protects American workers and also respects the rule of law. This amendment is the fairest method I know to do so, and to do so realistically, in order to truly reform our broken immigration system.
I am hopeful that this amendment will get support. If this amendment succeeds, I am happy to support the final legislation. As I said, there are many, many good provisions in the legislation, but under the present circumstances, I think there are many people in this body who have a very difficult time on the notions of fairness with the widely embracing notion of all the people who are involved. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. President.
Very nice, I like this statement a lot.
I welcome a debate on fairness. I would like to know how it is fair that corporations sponsor people? Is it fair that they control their workers very right to live and work here? I call that indentured servitude. This bill expands indentured servitude, and is fundamentally unfair.
You amendment limits the amount of people we can be unfair to, Senator Webb. That is all.
I can imagine a good intentioned Senator during the days of slavery arguing to increase taxes on slave purchases in order to curb the practice. The amendment shouldn't be to curb slavery, it should be to abolish it.
The same thing applies here. Your amendment should not be designed to limit unfairness, it should be designed to prevent it. Add provisions to your amendment that prevent corporate sponsorship of workers. If they tell you "it's too late, 20 amendment limit, blah blah blah" well that is the problem with this process. The Senate is trying to unfairly get this bill passed without adequate debate.
My amendment sought a workable middle ground on which to unite the extremes in this highly emotional immigration debate. It was important for me to leave a clear marker in terms of why the immigration bill, as it is currently drafted, holds significant flaws.There is no question that our immigration policy desperately needs a fix. But I will have difficulty supporting the final passage of this bill unless it satisfies the criteria of creating a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have put down roots in this country; protecting the legitimate interests of all working Americans; and honoring the rule of law.
I couldn't agree more. Rock on, Senator! :)
1) a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have put down roots in this country
2) protecting the legitimate interests of all working Americans
3) and honoring the rule of law.
The bill is so complex it would take me weeks to do that. The Senate has a couple of days to decide.
Which provisions work towards those goals, which work against, and to what degree. If members of the Senate cannot answer that question, then they are rushing this decision.
"Of those 12 million to 20 million people, as I have said for more than a year, there is a significant number who have during a period of lax immigration laws, come to this country . . . ."
12 to 20 million illegal aliens, and you call it a "period of lax immigration laws"?
I love Webb better when he tells it like it is, rather than when, like in this example, he is employing Senatorial rhetoric to talk to other Senators. Although I concede that to be an effective Senator, you've got to talk like a Senator sometimes.
Here's my translation:
"Of those 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, the true number of which we don't have a clue because of a twenty year period of deliberately lax or nonexistent enforcement of the immigration laws, some deserve a path to citizenship because of their contributions to society, and some do not.
"However, since the majority of the Senate already is utterly convinced that it is too onerous a burden to actually apply the existing immigration laws to the huge mass of illegal aliens they have allowed to overrun the country, it is a given that they are going to conclude that it is too difficult and onerous to winnow through the same huge mass of people to determine who deserves to be a citizen and who does not.
"The "touchback" provision would also be too difficult and onerous for the U.S. government to administer, so that is not going to pass either.
"Therefore, let us pretend like we intended all along to award citizenship to 90% of the 20 million plus illegals. Let's set up a self-reporting immigration system, let them decide themselves whether they want to be citizens, and squeeze extra fees and taxes out of the ones that do. As for the remaining 10%, say, those who have only been in the U.S. for less than four years, and those who prefer their "undocumented" status, let's throw the book at any of them that we can catch, so that the law in all its majesty will be respected."
If he ever wants to have any real sway in the senate he will have to learn the "rules" to "play"