Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I just left the address of President Calderon to the joint session of Congress in the House of Representatives. I think President Calderon's speech to Congress and to the American people was important and timely and really touched some issues of controversy which we cannot ignore.

He acknowledged the fact that his country is being torn apart by drug gangs and drug cartels. He acknowledged the obvious: the object of their commerce is to sell drugs in the United States of America. Our insatiable appetite for narcotics is creating a situation where people are engaged in lawlessness and violence and murder and mayhem in his country. We have to acknowledge that as the reality of the relationship between our two countries. It is not enough for us to lament the violence in Mexico without equally being prepared to say we have to do something on our side of the border to deal with drugs moving into the United States and the market for those drugs in our cities and States.

He also raised the important issue about the firearms that are flowing from the United States of America into Mexico, into the hands of these lawless members of these drug cartels. In the last several years, he told us, some 75,000 firearms have been confiscated. They believe 80 percent of them came from the United States, and many of them were military-type weapons, assault weapons and the like. He said--and I am sure it was not welcome to all corners on Capitol Hill--that we have to accept our responsibility when it comes to sensible gun safety and sensible gun laws.

The Supreme Court has said that under the second amendment, individuals are entitled to possess firearms for self-defense and for legitimate and legal purposes. The President of Mexico doesn't question that. I don't either. But the people who are buying and shipping guns into Mexico from the United States are not engaged in the type of protected constitutional activity the Supreme Court has noted. They have gone way beyond that. They are using, unfortunately, an open system in the United States to feed a drug war in a country south of us. So what are the results of this drug war? Thousands of innocent people are being killed. It is true that the gang violence back and forth results in the death of criminals on both sides, but innocent people are being caught in this crossfire in Mexico as well.

I might also add that the lawless nature of the situation in the northern part of the border is forcing more people into migration into the United States. It is not just the economics that drives people across the border; it is also the fear that they have to continue to live within communities and cities that are rife with violence.

I am glad the President of Mexico came forward to speak to these issues. We addressed them earlier this week in my Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had testimony from experts in the administration and outside the administration. It is obvious we need to do more to support Mexico, to try to do what we can to end this violence and the root causes of it on both sides of the border.

But there was one other issue the President of Mexico raised which needs to be discussed honestly. Yesterday, the First Lady of the United States visited an elementary school in a suburb of Washington with the First Lady of Mexico. Their purpose was to salute this school because of the physical activities that were available to the students and their commitment to a healthy lifestyle, which has been one of the real causes the First Lady has espoused in her role.

Then she had a little meeting there. You probably saw it on television. There were some small children around who asked questions, and one little girl said to the First Lady--she wanted to know why Obama, the President, was taking everybody away who does not have papers. This first-grader asked that question, sitting in with about a dozen other schoolchildren. And, of course, the First Lady of Mexico was sitting alongside our First Lady.

The First Lady, Michelle Obama, said: That is something we have to work on, right, to make sure people can be here with the right kind of papers.

Then this first-grader, this six- or seven-year-old girl, said: But my mom does not have any papers.

She blurted that out. I would say that was a telling moment for us in the United States to pause and reflect on what we are engaged in and what we are refusing to do in Congress. Had this young girl, this first-grader, made that statement in the State of Arizona today, it is my understanding their new law would have compelled an investigation of her family. What she said could create reasonable suspicion that someone in her family was here illegally. That innocent statement by that first-grader could have launched an investigation and an arrest and deportation. Is that where we are in America today? Is that what we have come to? I hope not.

I hope we accept our responsibility here in Congress. The President of Mexico invited us, challenged us--and he should--to do our job here to deal with comprehensive immigration reform. It is long overdue. We have to deal with our border situation, with the workplace situation, and with the fact that there are millions of people here today undocumented. We have to decide what is a just outcome for their fate.

I listened to many of my colleagues say: Well, I will not talk about any comprehensive immigration reform until we seal the border. Seal the border.

We should reflect on the obvious. The border between the United States and Mexico is the longest international border in the world between two countries, almost 2,000 miles long. And across that border every day, tens of thousands of people travel legally between the two countries--in commerce, on vacation, moving from one place to another, tens of thousands each day. We estimate that 250 million people legally cross the border between the United States and Mexico every single year. We also estimate that during the course of a year, 500,000 people cross that border illegally--250 million legally, 500,000 illegally.

I hope those who stand and say we have to seal the border are not suggesting we end all commerce and all travel between the United States and Mexico. That would work a great hardship on both nations as we try to ship our goods and services to them for purchase, and they do the same. The trade between the two countries is an important part of both of our economies.

But we do have to do what is reasonable and as complete as possible to deal with those borders, to make certain we reduce the flow of those who are coming in illegally. To say we are going to seal them off to the point where no one crosses illegally is perhaps to set a standard no one would ever be able to meet. I analogize it to saying that on I-95 near Washington, DC, we want to guarantee that no car or truck will pass along that interstate today illegally carrying narcotics or firearms. How would you enforce it? Could you stop all of the traffic? I assume that is one way to do it. But could you guarantee that each car and truck is coming through legally should you do it?

So let's start with the premise that we need to have better enforcement at the borders. We need more people there even though we have dramatically increased the agents who are working there. We need the very best technology to stop the illegal flow of people or other goods across that border. We need to have obstacles where they work but acknowledge that they are not the complete answer to the challenge. But let's not stop the conversation by requiring that we have a perfect border. There is not a perfect border in the world today. People get across borders. Things cross borders. They may not do it legally.

Secondly, we need to move forward with enforcement in the workplace. I salute Senator Schumer from New York, who has been working on this issue for quite a long time now.

He has come up with the notion that there would be an identification card associated with Social Security numbers so we would be able to establish when a person goes for a job that that, in fact, is a valid Social Security number belonging to a person with a certain name whom we can identify perhaps by biometric identification as the person standing before you. That would give employers peace of mind to know they are not hiring someone who is here in undocumented or illegal status. It is an important step forward so we can make sure the workplace is not an opportunity for those who come here illegally.

Finally, we have to deal with people who are here and do it in an honest and humane way, making certain we don't allow anyone who is a danger to America to remain but also say to those who have obeyed the laws and are willing to pay taxes and fines that they will be given a chance--a chance.

The last point I wish to make goes to this particular instance that was in the paper this morning involving the First Lady. Ten years ago I got a call in my office in Chicago from a Korean American, a woman who was a single mom who owned a dry cleaners. She had four children. Her oldest daughter had come to the United States with her from Korea when she was 1 or 2 years old. She was now 18 or 19 years of age and had been accepted to college. Her mom called because when she was filling out the application, there was a question about her daughter's citizenship and nationality. She said she was not certain because they had never filed any papers for her daughter, and they wanted to know what to do. They called Senator Durbin's office. So we checked into it with the immigration service and were advised that the girl, 18 or 19 years old, in the United States for 16 or 17 years, since she was a baby was, in fact, here illegally. The immigration service said there was only one recourse. She had to leave the United States and return to Korea for 10 years before she could be considered for legal status, 10 years to a country she has never known. It was because of that situation that I introduced the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act says if you were brought here to America as a child, if you have lived in this country without a criminal record that would disqualify you, if you graduate from high school, if you have no moral flaws that might disqualify you otherwise, you have an opportunity to reach legalization one of two ways: You may volunteer to serve in our military or you may complete 2 years of college. I introduced that 10 years ago because I thought it was reasonable. We are not a nation that penalizes children for the crimes of their parents. The tens of thousands of young people who have never known another country but the United States and only want to be part of our future deserve a chance. We cannot, we should not, deport them.

When I think about what happened to the First Lady yesterday with the 6-year-old girl, I wonder, 10 or 11 years from now, if she is still here in the only country she has ever known, if she came here perhaps in undocumented status, what will happen to her? I have met many like her, many who have completed high school, college, graduate school, and beyond. They have nowhere to go. They have no country. Their talents cannot be used to make this a better nation in and of itself. They could be our next nurse, teacher, doctor, engineer, business leader. They don't have a chance.

I hope my colleagues will consider cosponsoring the DREAM Act. We can save the big debate for comprehensive immigration reform. I support it. But I hope they will believe and join me in this one part of it to say that we won't penalize the children for this contentious, divisive political debate on immigration. Before the end of the year, I want us to take up comprehensive immigration reform. I thank Senator Schumer and others who have included the DREAM Act in the bill. I hope we can move forward. I think the experience of the First Lady yesterday is an indication that immigration is an issue whose time has come.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source