Thread: Sen. Menendez says he can not sign onto agreement announced

Press Release of Senator Menendez

KEY PLAYER IN IMMIGRATION NEGOTIATIONS VOICES HIS OBJECTIONS TO DEAL

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

Thursday, May 17, 2007

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."

A transcript from the Senate floor follows:

Mr. MENENDEZ: Mr. President, over the coming week the Senate has a historic opportunity to move forward with tough, smart, and fair comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, that ensures our economy continues to thrive, that protects American workers, and that at the same time undoes the process of committing millions of people to languish in the darkness and be exploited, 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 enforcement, that leaves our borders and our citizens unsecured and at the same time permits human exploitation to continue.

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 Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez available to try to reach an agreement that would do those things.

I have come, during the course of that process with other colleagues, to a better understanding of my colleagues and their thoughts on this issue through the many hours we have spent talking together about solving the immigration problems, though I have not always agreed with them. I would like to believe our discussions were serious, thorough, and in good faith. At times they were productive, at other times they hit obstacles, but when one considers the enormity of the task at hand, along with what is at stake, one would have to be naive in thinking this would be an easy process.

One thing we know for sure is that beginning next week, if cloture is invoked, an immigrating bill, in some form, will be considered on the floor of the Senate. I sincerely appreciate the commitment in regard to the time spent and the thought invested on this issue from all sides involved. The amount of work that has been put into this effort represents the interest level, not to mention the stakes.

I will say, however, that in large part, part of the problem in getting agreement this year was where the administration started off in their proposal, which acted as a marker in these negotiations. From the minute I saw that proposal, it was clear to me we were no longer where we were last year on this issue.

Last year, we passed a bipartisan bill, one that a majority of Americans could get behind. It was a historic effort that joined 23 Republicans with 39 Democrats to address an issue of urgent national importance. The bill is the basis of what Majority Leader Reid has scheduled a cloture vote for next Monday afternoon. I do hope we will be able to get a vote to be able to continue to proceed. I appreciate the majority leader making this issue a priority, having given us 2 months of lead time, telling us a very significant part of the Senate's calendar was being reserved for this debate. I appreciate his leadership in that regard.

However, unfortunately, the administration, along with several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, decided to radically alter their views and began the process this year with a far more impractical, in my mind, far more partisan proposal. Evidently, the White House convinced itself that it must have the support of some Republican Senators who 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 that is far to the right of the Senate's passed bill of a year ago.

Let me tell you what I believe the principles should be as to how the Senate should guide itself as it debates next week. I believe any immigration reform we pass must be tough in terms of the security of our country, it must be fair, it must be workable, it must be comprehensive in nature; that preserves, among other things, family values, keeps us safe as a country, rewards hard work and sacrifice, benefits all Americans, and promotes safe, legal, and orderly immigration. Now, I could not sign on to the agreement announced in principle earlier today because, in my mind, it does not meet the principles I just described.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to just state that very briefly in Spanish.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MENENDEZ. (Speaking in Spanish.)

Mr. President, what I just said is I could not sign on to the agreement announced in principle because it tears families apart, and it says to many that they are only good enough to work here but not good enough to stay. Depending upon the category of individuals, it levies rather high penalties and fines, and it does not provide the confidentiality or judicial review necessary to bring those people who are undocumented in the country out of the shadows and into the light.

Now, I have serious concerns about the workability and the fairness of the agreement announced earlier because, first and foremost, 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, their parents, and siblings to join them in this country.

I took it very much to heart when President Bush said family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, that we all share those family values. Yet here we are with a piece of legislation which I gather is largely supported by the White House which undermines the very essence of that. Even under a new point structure that is envisioned under this bill, it seems to me the essence of family could get much more weighty within the context of a whole new process of how we are going to move our immigration system forward. Family is a critical value—I thought—in our country.

It calls for a truly temporary and, I am concerned, potentially Bracero-style worker program that labor ultimately will not support and that could repeat the same problem all over, having us face this challenge in the years ahead by the way it is devised.

It does not have confidentiality and judicial review, at least not of the standard I have seen to date; it is still one of those floating things out there. The reality is, if we want people to come out of the shadows into the light, to know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to destroy it, then we need to be able to have those individuals understand that they will, in fact, and should come forth so that, in fact, they can go through the process envisioned by the framework agreement but that they will have confidentiality and judicial review in the process. Without addressing those issues, the system that would be created under the proposal would do little to fix our broken immigration system in the long term.

Now, I support fines for those who have broken the law. But the fines that are proposed are prohibitive, and they make a pathway to legalization a path in name only. A family of four would have to pay $10,000 in fines and fees, which is more than last year's bill even after it was amended twice on the floor to increase those fines. That does not even include the cost of their trip to "touch back" when they seek to become a permanent resident. Unable to pay these fines and fees, some of the undocumented workers will be unable to come out of the shadows and into the light of American's progress and 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 such as those which were recently almost carried out at Fort Dix in my home State of New Jersey.

If we had the right set of standards, which I envision us having in our bill, and people would come forward, we would have caught those individuals by the background checks we would have conducted. But for those people to come forth, obviously, there has to be some sense that in fact there is a real opportunity; otherwise, no one will come forward.

They also propose virtually doing away with provision for family reunification which has been the bedrock of our immigration policy throughout our history. This idea not only changes the spirit of our immigration policy, it also emphasizes the family structure. If this system had been in place when my mother and father attempted to come to this country, they certainly would not have qualified.

As I have listened to the stories of so many of our fellow colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, I know many of their parents would never have qualified to come to this country. I would like to think that they made, and continue to make, some very significant contributions to our Nation. It seems to me a new paradigm could have been structured where family values and reunification have more of a fighting chance than under the framework agreement.

As for the temporary worker program, we are inviting in temporary workers but, of course, we expect them to leave. Yes, temporary is temporary, and we are going to rotate them through, but how we do that and what pathway at the end of the day we might provide for saying you are human capital is incredibly important to this country. As if you perform enough of it, there may be an opportunity for you to adjust your status. But the way that the framework document envisions, it can simply create another undocumented workforce. It also sends the message that there are some people good enough to work here but not good enough to stay here; there are others good enough to work here and to stay here. If one didn't know what year it was, one might think we were discussing the National Origins Act of 1924. These and other problems with the proposed deal have to be improved to be able to support the type of reform that will meet the principles I have outlined.

Generally speaking, it seems to me we have taken a radical departure from what we were able to collectively achieve last year. We need to take a hard look at it as we open the debate next week. For the sake of much needed reform, many Democrats, including myself, showed a willingness, even more than I would have envisioned, to make strides toward the White House's proposal. Even so there are certain issues where too much bend ultimately creates 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 sufficiently responsible in terms of meeting these values—security of the country, making sure we deal with our economy in a way that doesn't depress wages but at the same time realizes certain economic sectors need help and preserves family values, and at the same time makes sure we end the exploitation that often takes place when those people are languishing in the darkness. 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 eventually allows 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; in my mind, one of the greatest parts of America's experiment that has made it the great country that it is. I look forward to leading efforts on the floor of the Senate that will strengthen our security, protect American workers, deal with the necessities of our economy, while at the same time upholding the promise and the value of the American story that we hold so dear. We need to improve the framework document that has been announced through the legislative process next week. This is too important an issue to allow partisan politics to play a role. It is too important an issue to only be concerned about appeasing a relatively small part of a 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, fear, and smear tactics.

I know in my heart this is possible. I pray that it is practical and that we can end up with a bill next week that does these things: secures our country in a meaningful way and at the same time makes sure that we can preserve the economic interests of our country in all of the different aspects of our economy; that can say that the promise of family values we hold so dear and that has been at the core for over four decades of our immigration system can continue to be a reality; that we can end the human exploitation of people within our country, and in doing so, we actually make our country safer, more secure, and more robust in its economy. That is where I hope to lead efforts on the Senate floor next week.

I appreciate the work that has been done by the Senators who have agreed to the framework agreement. I just believe it falls too short in some of the key principles for me to be supportive.

I am looking forward to a bill on which we can join together and say: We did the best for the Nation. We did what is humanely right. We did what is right for the Nation in terms of its security and its economy, and we have preserved the very essence of what this Nation has been about.

From my home State of New Jersey, which was a gateway to millions of people across this country, particularly during the period of Ellis Island, we can almost touch Lady Liberty. Ellis Island is a short bridge walk across. The reality is that because of those people who have contributed so dramatically to our country, we all have a relationship to immigration—whether you can trace your history to the Mayflower and the voyage of that first opportunity, whether you are part of the Daughters of the American Revolution, whether you came with the millions in the European experience that crossed a great ocean through Ellis Island and then throughout our country, whether you came, as my parents did, in search of freedom, the reality is, we all have a connection. Let's honor that connection in a way that meets these values. Let' meet that challenge.

I hope we can do so next week as the Senate convenes on this historic debate. I look forward to that opportunity.

I yield the floor.

# # #

http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/rec ... id=274602&

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.

This jerk wants the E Ticket to Disneyland.

Rep. Menendez works only for La Raza(the Race). He does not see the impact beyond the cities in New Jersey. 2.1 billion dollars in taxes because of allegal aliens and he does not hear the cry of LAW ABIDING NJ taxpayers!!!!!

He's a joke! He's not getting my vote or the vast majority of patriotic NJ taxpayers in the next election! I will work very hard to make sure every taxpaying NJ resident knows his voting record! I think they will already know by TOMARROW!

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.

Tell me that I'm asleep in my bed and I 'm dreaming that I read this.

What a blankety blank blank BLANK

"It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be fair, humane, and practical."


Fair and humane huh? what's humane about Ramos and Campeon getting beat up and wasting their lives away in prison because of one of the people you want to treat so "fair and humanely?" I just saw a news story that some poor woman was being charged with trumped up 16 counts of felony for lying about her residence so her son could go to a better school with less gangs and drugs and she was looking at a possible 80 years they said!!!!!!!! Luckily her fellow peers of jury aquitted her on all counts. This world has gone crazy and you sir are part of the problem not the solution. Go away!???

katydid278 wrote:

and you sir are part of the problem

Boy oh boy Katy, did you ever hit the nail on the head.

Well Senator, if we give them a free ride back to their home country they won't have to pay any fees will they? Problem solved.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be fair, humane, and practical.

I could not agree more; we should be fair and adopt Mexico's
immigration laws. You cannot get much fairer than that.

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign
visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's
internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned
or deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are
imprisoned or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their
possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be
useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds
for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence
upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics, " when foreigners
are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they
do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have
broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or
mentally healthy." (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the
admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national
interest." (Article 3Cool

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal
immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests
of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single
individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies
each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and
immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique
tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false
pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or
imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that
is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to
fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or
imprisoned as felons:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be
punished. (Article 117)

* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter
the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10
years. (Article 11

* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced
to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners
who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as
working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on
Population says,

* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three
hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who
enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from
Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or
security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves
considered criminals under the law:

* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of
helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five
years in prison. (Article 127)

* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented
foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

I like these laws, lets use them. Its a reform that is fair to all
involved.

You dont reward people for criminal behavior. They broke into our
country while millions of others have gone through the legal channels
and waited years to get citizenship.

Does he hink that is fair? Perhaps we should reward
burglars and bank robbers. After all, they are just trying to make a
better life for themselves.

What other crimes does he advocate?