Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, On Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee, On Comprehensive Immigration Reform

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.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200604/040706.html