Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators KENNEDY, KYL, and CORNYN, as well as Senator McCain and those who are responsible for putting this together.

This is a dramatic improvement over the original version of this amendment.

I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. I think of these laws and amendments in human terms that we deal with every day in our Senate offices. Almost 80 percent of all of the case work requests for help that we receive in my offices in Illinois relate to immigration. Every day, we have new situations and new family challenges that we are forced to confront. Some of them are heartbreaking.

I think specifically of the Benitez family in Chicago. Mr. Benitez is an American citizen. He works hard. He has lived in this country for many years. He is a wonderful man. I see him in downtown Chicago regularly when I am going around. It is always good to see such a fine man who has worked so hard and who really believes in his family.

His wife came to this country on a visa, overstayed the visa, married him, and continued to live in the United States undocumented. They have four children. Mr. Benitez and his four children are all American citizens.

The mother of his undocumented wife died in Mexico. She went back to Mexico to the funeral of her mother. When she came back into the country, she was stopped at the border. Because of that, she has had an outstanding order of deportation. She made it back to the United States in an undocumented status with an outstanding order for deportation.

Is it justice in this case that this woman would somehow be deported from the United States at this moment if her husband and four children, all American citizens, are living here? They are good people, working hard, paying their taxes, speaking English, doing everything we ask of them. That is not fair.

We have added in this amendment an opportunity for Mrs. Benitez to appeal for a humanitarian waiver for family circumstances. The language of this amendment bears repeating so the intent is clear. We give to those aliens who would be subject to deportation an opportunity to petition in cases of extreme hardship if the alien spouse, parent, or child is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

We have created a family unification, humanitarian waiver, nonreviewable, but at least it gives Mrs. Benitez and people like her a chance to say: Let me keep my family together. Let me stay in the United States. Give me a chance to become legal.

That is sensible. That makes good sense. I am glad Senators CORNYN and KYL have agreed to this and we have come together. There are some people who will not be protected, those subject to orders of deportation who are currently single and do not have any relatives within the United States who would qualify under these provisions. This may not apply to them. But certainly for the family circumstance I just described, this humanitarian waiver is on all fours. This affects these families in a very positive way and gives them the chance they have been praying for for so long.

I commend Senator Kennedy and all who brought this together.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am not opposed to fences and vehicle barriers. They are included in the bill. It is our understanding there are some places where fencing can be effective to stop illegal immigration into America. But what we have here has become a symbol for the rightwing in American politics: the symbol of a fence, a fence between America and Mexico.

If you have been a student of politics for a few minutes or a few days, you will know where this is going to end. This proposal by Senator Sessions would construct a fence of about 370 miles in length. The House Republicans want to build a fence that is 2,000 miles long. So what will likely happen, should this amendment pass the Senate and go to conference, is we will split the difference, and we will end up with a fence that is over 1,000 miles long on America's southern border. And perhaps, as Senator Kennedy has suggested, it will be the downpayment for a fence that would stretch for 2,000 miles.

They have come down from their original request of a 700- or 800-mile fence. That was going to be the first thing asked for, when somebody suggested that would be a fence the distance of which could stretch from the Washington Monument to the Sears Tower in Chicago. That is the distance we are talking about--700 or 800 miles--but that could be the ultimate result here.

The obvious question we have to ask ourselves--I think two questions--No. 1, will it work? If you build a fence like this, will it work? Will it hold people back or will it become our ``Maginot Line''? The Maginot Line was the line of defense built by France after World War I to stop the Germans should they ever want to attack again. And the French invested a great sum of money and all of their national security in the idea they could build a line that the Germans could never cross. They waited, knowing they were secure, until World War II began and the German panzers just crushed the Maginot Line and came roaring over it, destroying all of their feelings that they were safe forever.

I feel the same way about this fence. What fence is it that we will build that cannot be tunneled under, that you cannot go over or around? Is this really going to be an effective deterrent?

What we have suggested in the bill, which is completely full of ideas on enforcement, is to use technology. It may not be this high fence they want to build is the best thing for us. The technology we have available might be much better. We can have a virtual fence which achieves much more than a fence, which would cost us millions of dollars and be easily overcome. So in the first instance, I am concerned where this will end, how long this fence will be, and whether, in the end, we will be safer in building it.

The second thing is the image it creates of a country, that our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries. I believe we should have a more positive outlook toward where we are going to be. Working with the Mexican Government, working with them toward the goal of stopping illegal immigration, is far better than the confrontation of a fence or a wall. I think it could bring us to a day when we will have our borders under control, with all we invest in this bill, with what we do by way of enforcement at the border and in the workplace, and with what we do with those who are currently here in the United States.

It is a coordinated and comprehensive approach. It isn't just a matter of building a fence. It isn't a matter of enforcement alone. It is enforcement as a starting point.

My concern about this fence, which is likely to end up being over 1,000 miles long, is that it will not protect America. It will not stop the illegal flow of immigration. It would create an image of America which I am not sure we would be proud of in years to come. I will oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/