I just wanted to briefly ask the gentleman from Texas a question. That is, having listened to the comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], with which I generally agree, that is, that kind immigration and illegal immigration are rather separate subjects and for various purposes deserve to be discussed separately. It is the case that this amendment merely splits the two so that they can be discussed separately, or is it rather the case that the effect of the amendment would be to strike out all of the parts of the bill for good that deal with legal immigration?
TJ Cox: “I just wanted to briefly ask the gentleman from Texas a question. That is, having listened to the comments of the…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the implications of an amendment related to immigration policy.
Share
More from TJ Cox
If I tried to tell company investors or shareholders that I was going to reorganize a company without showing them evidence of a need to do so or a way to measure success, a plan, I would be laughed out of the room.
I thank the whip, and I thank him especially for his inspiring remarks about an inspired man, a hero of mine and his and so many Americans. What happened during the 20th century, which really spans Ronald Reagan's lifetime, was nothing…
it is well, as we conclude debate and prepare to vote, that we recall what it is that is contained in the resolution before us. This is a resolution that will grant the staff attorneys, not the staff but the staff attorneys, former U.S…
The gentlewoman is correct. It is my clear understanding that Congress did not, in adopting the Reform Act, intend to alter standards of liability under the Exchange Act.





