Sessions gave a strong speech in the Senate today denouncing S.2611 in blistering terms. Below is FAIR’s summary of it, which is not yet posted at the FAIR site. Among other things, Sesssions points out that the impact of low-skilled immigrant workers on America has never been discussed in the Senate or in committee. He said immigration is beneficial for such immigrants, not for America.
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.
Senator Sessions asked why the Senate had not considered the economic impact of bringing in low-skilled workers instead of high-skilled workers. At some point, the great Senate of the United States needs to think about the future, he said. The Senator described one hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee had with a panel of prominent economists. Upon questioning, the economists agreed that low-skilled immigrants drove down wages and were a net drain on the economy. Conversely, he said, the economists also agreed that high-skilled workers help the economy. The Senator said he particularly remembered that one of the economists put it this way: “The biggest beneficiary of immigration tends to be the immigrant.”
The Senator argued that over the last decade, the real earnings of low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased. Thus, low-skilled Americans are not sharing in the American economy. Yet, he said, we have a deal between some immigrant groups and the Chamber of Commerce, who don’t seem to be concerned with decent and hard working—but low-skilled—Americans. By the way, the Senator remarked, it hurts the most when President Bush says these are jobs Americans won’t do. I reject that. He should never say that. These jobs and work are honorable, they just don’t pay enough.
Senator Sessions argued that numerous other developed countries consider the skill level of immigrants in their immigration system. He noted that Australia, Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands all screen or give points to applicants based on skill level. The Senator added that the French parliament passed a bill two days ago that requires applicants for admission to learn French and eliminates certain ways for illegal aliens to receive legal status.
Senator Sessions concluded by stating that there was a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation on the Senate floor. It should never, never, never pass, he declared. And, he said, it is a sad day when its proponents go around back rooms saying don’t worry that it’s not so bad. We just need to get something to conference and maybe the House will save us.