Menendez Does Not Support the Compromise

May 20, 2007

Reported on May 17:
KEY PLAYER IN IMMIGRATION NEGOTIATIONS VOICES HIS OBJECTIONS TO DEAL

Sen. Menendez says he can not sign onto agreement announced today

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a key negotiator in closed door Senate meetings on immigration reform, today voiced his objections to the agreement announced. Menendez said he could not support the limitations in the family reunification program, the temporary nature of the worker program, and the unrealistically high fees that undocumented immigrants would have to pay.

“There are certain issues where too much bend would create an impractical and ineffective immigration system,” said Menendez. “Unfortunately, that is what I believe will occur under the agreement announced earlier this afternoon.

“I for one cannot settle for something that isn’t responsible, or something that creates a bigger problem than already exists. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but it does have to be fair, humane, and practical.”

Senator Robert Menendez’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

M. President,

Over the coming week, the Senate has an historic opportunity to move forward with tough, smart, and fair comprehensive immigration reform that secures our nation’s borders; or, we can choose to abdicate our responsibilities and tacitly maintain the status quo of failed laws and a broken immigration system that is weak on enforcement and leaves our borders and our citizens unsecured.

As a group, several Senators including myself, have been meeting and negotiating on comprehensive immigration reform over the past couple of months. I appreciate the President making Secretaries Chertoff and Gutierrez available to be brokers in this effort to reach an agreement that would secure our nation’s borders while also allowing those here in an undocumented status to EARN a possible pathway to legalization. I have come to a better understanding of my colleagues through the many hours we spent talking together about solving the immigration problem, though I have not always agreed with them.

Our discussions were serious, thorough and in good faith. At times they were productive, at other times we hit obstacles, but when one considers the enormity of the task at hand along with what’s at stake, one would have to be naïve in thinking that this would be an easy process.

One thing we know for sure is that beginning next week, if cloture is invoked, an immigration bill in some form will be considered on the floor of the Senate.

I sincerely appreciate the commitment in regards to the time spent and thought invested on this issue from all sides involved. The amount of work put into this represents the interest level, not to mention the stakes.

I will say that a large part of the problem in getting agreement this year was the administration’s proposal, which acted as a marker in negotiations. From the minute I saw their proposal, it was clear: they were no longer where they were last year on this issue.

Last year, we passed a bipartisan, responsible and practical reform bill – one that the majority of Americans could get behind. It was an historic effort that joined 23 Republicans with 39 Democrats to address an issue of urgent national importance. That bill is the basis of S. 1348 that Leader Reid has scheduled a cloture vote on for next Monday afternoon. I appreciate the Leader making this issue a priority and for giving us a two month lead on the floor debate.

Unfortunately, the Administration along with several Senate Republicans decided to radically alter their views and began the process this year with a far more impractical, far more partisan and far more cynical proposal.

Evidently, the White House convinced itself it must have the support of some Republican Senators that opposed and worked to defeat last year’s bill in order to pass something this year. Therefore, the White House has proposed an immigration reform plan far to the right of the Senate-passed bill of a year ago.

I believe any immigration reform we pass must be tough, fair, workable, and comprehensive in nature that preserves family values, keeps us safe, rewards hard work and sacrifice, benefits all Americans, and promotes safe, legal, and orderly immigration.

I could not sign on to the agreement announced in principle because it does not meet the principles I just described.

Yo no puedo apoyar el acuerdo que se ha anunciado porque divide a las familias, les dice ha muchos que valen la pena para trabajar aquí, pero no valen la pena para vivir permanente aquí; impone altas multas y pagos; y no provee la confidencialidad necesaria para traer a los indocumentados fuera de la oscuridad y hacia la luz.

For those looking for their Spanish-English dictionaries, I just said I could not sign on to the agreement announced in principle because it tears families apart, says to many that they are only good enough to work here, but not good enough to stay; levies very high penalties and fees; and does not provide the confidentiality necessary to bring the undocumented out of the shadows and into the light.

I have serious concerns about the workability and fairness of the agreement announced earlier because it:

Tears at the fabric of family reunification by limiting and eliminating the ability of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to petition for their children, parents, and siblings to join them in this country (So much for family values not stopping at the Rio Grande as the President has talked about.);

Calls for a truly temporary, and potentially Bracero-style, worker program that labor ultimately won’t support and that could repeat this same problem all over again; AND

Calls for the undocumented to pay unrealistically high fees that some will not be able to afford;

Without addressing these issues, the system that would be created under their proposal would do little to fix our broken immigration system in the long-term.

We all support fines for those who broke the law, but the fines they proposed are prohibitive and make the pathway to legalization a path in name only. A family of four would have to pay $10,000 in fines and fees, which is much more than last year’s bill even after it was amended twice to increase those fines. And that doesn’t even include the cost of the roundtrip to their country of origin that would be required of the head of the household to “file” their application for legal permanent resident status.

Unable to pay these fines and fees, some of the undocumented workers would be unable to come out of the shadows and into the light of America’s promise. Giving people the opportunity to come out of the shadows is an essential and necessary component of immigration reform, because it will allow us to recognize who is here to seek the American dream versus who is here to destroy it through criminal or terrorist acts, like were recently almost carried out at Fort Dix, in my state of New Jersey.

They also proposed virtually doing away with family reunification provisions – a bedrock of our immigration policy throughout our nation’s history. This idea not only changes the spirit of our immigration policy, it also de-emphasizes the family structure. And if this system had been in place when my mother and father came to this country fleeing tyranny and searching for freedom, they most likely would not have been allowed into this country since my mother was a seamstress and my father a carpenter. Having listened to the stories of so many members of Congress, their relatives would not have made it under the system envisioned by the proposed agreement.

I would like to think that my family has made some contributions to America over the years that we have been here.

As for the worker program, we are inviting in temporary workers but requiring them to leave. Not only is this impractical, but the program would simply create another undocumented workforce here in this country. It also sends the message that there are people who are good enough to work here but not good enough to stay, while others are good enough to work, stay and live here. If one didn’t know the year it was, one might think we were discussing the National Origins Act of 1924.

These and other problems with the proposed deal must be improved to comprehensively deal with this issue.

Generally speaking, the Administration didn’t tip toe away from last year’s bipartisan position- they took a huge leap backwards. Despite this radical departure, I still give everyone credit for staying in the room and talking through this.

For the sake of the much needed reform, Democrats showed a willingness -even more so than I would like – to make strides toward the White House’s proposal. Even so, there are certain issues where too much bend would create an impractical and ineffective immigration system. Unfortunately, that is what I believe will occur under the agreement announced earlier this afternoon.

I for one cannot settle for something that isn’t responsible, or something that creates a bigger problem than already exists. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but it does have to be fair, humane, and practical.

Part of the magic of our Constitution is that it has eventually allowed the better parts of our nature to prevail. The better part of our national character is found in the strength we have achieved through our diversity. But that better nature must be fought for and fostered.

I look forward to leading efforts on the floor that will strengthen our security, protect American workers, deal with the necessities of our economy, while at the same time uphold the promise and value of the American story that we hold so dear.

We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process.

This is too important of an issue to allow partisan politics to play a role. This is too important of an issue to only be concerned about appeasing a small, political base that is unrepresentative of the American public at large. We must come together not as Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, but as statesmen, and in doing so, honor the traditions of the Senate as a body that values reasoning, honest debate, and compromise over sound bites, talking points, and fear and smear tactics. I know in my heart that this is possible and pray that it is practical.