Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee,
On Comprehensive Immigration Reform
April 7, 2006
I was encouraged this week that the
Majority Leader and other Senate Republicans moved in our direction,
a good direction, by recognizing that we need a solution to the
problems posed by having millions of undocumented immigrants inside
our borders. Many of us believe that immigration reform, to have
any chance to succeed, needs to be comprehensive-- with strong
enforcement and border security, matched with fair and effective
steps to bring millions of hardworking people out of the shadows and
provide them a path to citizenship and a full measure of
America’s promise.
The bill now being proposed by the
Majority Leader is not as comprehensive or as good as that produced
by the Judiciary Committee in that it leaves many among us out of
the equation and may have the perverse affect of driving millions
further underground. I thought the bipartisan Committee bill
represented a better balance of strong enforcement of our borders
with fair reforms that honored human dignity and our American
values.
I continue to work for a bill and a
law that is fair to all. We all agree that it will be tough on
security, but it also has to acknowledge our American values and,
above all, human dignity. The House-passed bill and the original
Frist bill were overly punitive.
Wisely, in our deliberations in the Judiciary Committee
and in the alternative now being proposed, we have rejected the
controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide
humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling and other
basic services to the undocumented to possible prosecution under
felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. That was a
cruel amendment and I’m glad it’s gone. And we have rejected the
proposal to criminalize mere presence in an undocumented status in
the United States, which
would trap people in a permanent underclass. Those provisions
understandably sparked nationwide protests, are being viewed as
anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant, and are inconsistent with American
values. I am delighted that those efforts have now been abandoned
in the Senate. I was encouraged, as well, by Chairman
Sensenbrenner’s recent letter on this subject. We need to be
vigilant and not backslide in this regard.
I fear that the arbitrary
categorization of people in the current proposal is not fair to
all. I would not want us to set bureaucratic hurdles and arbitrary
timeframes that will serve negatively to continue an underclass in
American and drive people underground. The purpose of the path to
citizenship is to bring people into the sunshine of American life
and into law-abiding status so that they abide by all our laws.
That will allow our enforcement resources to be focused on real
security concerns. Sadly, those across the aisle have refused to
proceed on the bipartisan Committee bill so this alternative
proposal is an effort to garner additional support from the Majority
Leader and others but it comes at some expense. He opposed the
Specter-Leahy-Hagel amendment but now supports the Frist amendment,
which he graciously called the Hagel-Martinez amendment. The
Majority Leader called it a “negotiated compromise.”
I was not a party to those
negotiations. Given the successful Republican opposition and
obstruction of the bipartisan Committee bill, I have now joined in
efforts to improve the Frist amendment and the Hagel-Martinez
amendment. I am working with Senator Obama and Senator Durbin to
improve that measure.
I do not in any way disparage the
efforts of my friends from
Nebraska and Florida. I appreciate
their efforts. I know that they had indicated their support for the
bipartisan Committee bill. In fact, a majority of Senators
supported the bipartisan Committee bill. Rather, they are trying to
point a way toward the best possible legislation that can achieve
not just a majority but a supermajority of support within the
current Senate.
I will support the Majority Leader’s
motion for cloture on the motion to commit. That will bring the
Frist amendment before the Senate. I will continue to work for
bipartisan, comprehensive, smart, tough and fair immigration reform.
I was surprised to hear the Majority
Leader say last night that he was considering opposing oppose his
own motion. We should have invoked cloture yesterday on the
bipartisan Committee bill. I hope that we do so today on the Frist
motion on the Frist amendment.
I appreciate that for those
undocumented immigrants who can prove they have been in the
U.S. for more than five years,
the path to citizenship that we voted out of Committee would still
govern. To earn status and eventual citizenship, the immigrant must
undergo background checks, work, pay taxes, pay fines, and learn
English. That is not an amnesty program. The Republican Leader has
now reversed his position and supports those provisions. That is
progress. In addition, the bill we will be considering continues to
contain the Ag Jobs bill and the DREAM Act, and the amendments the
Senate voted to add to the bipartisan Committee bill, including the
Bingaman enforcement amendment and the Alexander citizenship
amendment.
Those undocumented immigrants who have
been here for two to five years would, under the provisions of the
new bill, have to leave the
U.S. and seek approval to return and
to work under a temporary status for four years. They could
eventually seek legal permanent status, probably after a total of 8
to 10 years, and only after those who have “seniority” to them by
being in the group that has been in the U.S. for more than five
years. Thus, this new grouping of people is treated under a
combination of rules drawn from a bill introduced by the senior
Senator from Nebraska and the Kyl-Cornyn bill. Perhaps those who
negotiated this scheme will garner the support of Senator Kyl and
Senator Cornyn and others with whom they have been working.
At least, this new categorization
preserves a potential pathway to regularized status. The test will
be whether it is made so onerous by its implementation that those in
this designated category will come forward at all. We will all need
to work to make that a reality so that they know that we value them,
their families and their hard work.
The most recent arrivals, those
immigrants after January
1, 2004, are offered no special treatment. I was concerned about
similar aspects of the Committee bill. There are no incentives to
come forward. They are merely told to leave the U.S. and apply for
one of the limited visas that will be authorized. They could try to
come back as legal temporary workers.
If we do not, I worry that the
Majority Leader’s announcement of a “breakthrough” will have the
unintended effect of having created a false impression and false
hopes. I commend him for changing his position over the course of
the last week. I am delighted that he and others who had been
opposing comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship
are joining us in the effort. But an announcement is not the
enactment of a new law. I urge people, especially the undocumented,
to remember that. We are still a long way from enacting fair,
comprehensive and humane immigration reform. None has yet passed
the Senate. And certainly fair immigration reform has not passed
the House. The cruelest joke of all would be to raise expectations
and false hopes by premature talk of a solution when none has yet
been achieved, especially if it remains elusive and that promise is
not fulfilled.
So while I am glad that some
Republicans have dropped their opposition to establishing a path to
citizenship for many, I worry that many others may be left behind.
I also urge everyone concerned about the lives of those who are
undocumented to remain cautious and focused on enacting a law, and
on what it will provide in its final form. It would be wrong to
just pass a bill that ends up serving as a false promise to those
who yearn to be part of the promise of a better life that is
America.
Our work on immigration reform is a
defining moment in our history. We are writing laws that will
determine people’s lives and what it is that
America stands for. I continue to
urge the Senate to rise to the occasion and act as the conscience of
the Nation. I will continue to work on immigration reform so that
the laws we enact will be in keeping with the best the Senate can
offer the Nation and the best that America can offer to immigrants.
I hope that our work will be something that would make my immigrant
grandparents proud, and a product that will make our children and
grandchildren proud.
There will be more rallies around the
country next week by thousands of people in cities across the
United States. They know what
we Senators now know – our immigration system is broken and we need
to fix it. We need to fix it with effective, comprehensive
reforms. The question is still open whether the Senate is committed
to making real immigration reform.
I have said from the outset that
Democratic Senators could not pass a good immigration bill on our
own. With fewer than 50
Democratic Senators, we will need the support of Republican Senators
if the Senate is to make progress on this important matter.
The Majority Leader had often spoken
of allowing two weeks for Senate debate of this important matter.
We now approach the end of that work period. I had hoped we would
be farther along. When the Senate did not complete work on the
lobbying reform bill on schedule — because Republicans refused to
vote on the port security amendment -- it cut into time for this
immigration debate. When the Majority Leader decided to begin the
debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost more
time. We were left then with one week, not two. We have lost time
that could have been spent debating and adopting amendments when
some Republicans withheld consent from utilizing our usual
procedures over the last days. We have endured the false and
partisan charges of obstruction came from the other side. We have
experienced seemingly endless quorum calls without debate or
action.
I thank the Democratic Leader for his
efforts. He has been working for a comprehensive, realistic and
fair immigration bill. We still are. I regret that over the last
several days some tried to make this into a partisan fight. I hope
that we are now able to draw back together in a bipartisan effort to
pass a good bill that becomes a good law.
# # # # #