Immigration will be one of the key issues on the table in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Russ Feingold’s stance on immigration is that if you come to this country illegally, but you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to earn legalization and eventually citizenship. He has consistently stood up for the rights of immigrants to raise children in this country as well, recognizing that they should be treated just like any other person born in the US.
One paradox is that if we had adopted Russ Feingold’s policies, we would have had a lot fewer immigrants come to this country. I say that because NAFTA and other such agreements, which Feingold opposed, have allowed companies to engage in massive pollution, set up toxic waste dumps, and create conditions in which workers can only work at their sweatshops for $1 a day.
As for me personally, I would not want to live near a toxic waste dump. I would also not want to live where I could only get $1 a day; I would want to work somewhere where I can make $5.15 an hour. That is like a King’s ransom to someone who has only known poverty. NAFTA and other such free trade agreements made living conditions much worse in Mexico, sparking a massive tidal wave of immigration here.
To remedy this problem, Russ Feingold is proposing a plan which would establish a process for illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants if they have worked hard and played by the rules. This is a fairness issue because not only are the immigrants affected, their wives (who could be a US citizen) and children are affected as well. To totally focus on the illegal immigrant without focusing on their immediate families is narrow and short-sited.
And many of these immigrants are not paid fair wages. Feingold would seek to remedy that. Here is his statement from a speech he gave at the Judiciary Committee:
Today, millions of undocumented workers live in and contribute to our communities and economy, in Wisconsin and across the country. But while they work hard and contribute in many ways, these immigrants live in fear, each and every day, of deportation and often of exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Both for our nation’s security, and to be true to basic American values of fairness and justice, we should bring these workers out of the shadows. We will all be better off if we create a realistic immigration system that recognizes that we need these workers, that allows them to come into the United States legally, and that ensures the government knows who is entering the country. If we permit these workers to enter the country legally, border agents can focus their efforts on terrorists and others who pose a serious threat to this nation.
We also need to recognize that foreign workers who have paid their dues should be treated fairly and deserve the same protections as other workers. All workers will be better off if guest workers are paid fair wages and are covered by adequate workplace protections.
Furthermore, creating a system for allow illegal immigrants to stay here legally is good for business:
This is an issue that affects not only these workers, but American employers as well. The law should acknowledge the reality that American businesses need access to foreign workers for jobs they cannot fill with American workers. In Wisconsin, I have heard from many business owners about the need for Congress to fix the broken immigration system. These hard-working Americans want to play by the rules, and cannot fathom why Congress has dragged its feet on this issue for so long. Whether we are talking about agriculture, or tourism, or landscaping, or any of the other industries where foreign workers make valuable contributions, businesses will suffer more than they already have if we fail to enact meaningful, comprehensive, long-term immigration reform.
The problem for American businesses is that most American people are not willing to do the kind of grunt work that is necessary to make businesses succeed. We would rather go into debt to go to college for 4-8 years and get a high-paying job of our choice rather than just take something that is available, like, say, a newspaper carrier for a daily paper and live a frugal lifestyle.
But most immigrants are different. They would love to do the kind of work that we moan and groan about and would be willing to do it for much less pay than we would demand as the price for doing such a task.
That is why businesses are willing to risk getting into trouble with the law in order to hire undocumented aliens. They are frequently the only people willing to do certain kinds of work. I worked at a cap factory which paid minimum wage and did not pay health insurance once. In fact, a local hog farm paid more that what this place did. They had an extremely high turnover rate, as people were simply not willing to sit in a hot, sweaty factory in summertime for just $5.15 an hour. In addition, there was all kinds of dust floating around which could build up in your lungs and cause lung problems later in life.
There were only two kinds of people willing to work there for any length of time — older people who could not find another job, or young people looking to make an extra buck for the summer. There were some people who would work there for 1-2 weeks and them simply quit. One girl started work there and then simply walked off the job after just half a day’s work. That is why hiring immigrants and risking trouble with the INS is so attractive to such businesses.
All people are equal and deserve a chance in life. Feingold’s views on immigration are heavily influenced by Justice Arthur Goldberg. Feingold, discussing his vote against the Patriot Act, said in a speech:
During those first few hours after the attacks, I kept remembering a sentence from a case I had studied in law school. Not surprisingly, I didn’t remember which case it was, who wrote the opinion, or what it was about, but I did remember these words: “While the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” I took these words as a challenge to my concerns about civil liberties at such a momentous time in our history; that we must be careful to not take civil liberties so literally that we allow ourselves to be destroyed.
But upon reviewing the case itself, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, I found that Justice Arthur Goldberg had made this statement but then ruled in favor of the civil liberties position in the case, which was about draft evasion. He elaborated:
“It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation’s foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action. “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances…. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution.”
Feingold goes on to discuss the most notorious instances of xenophobia in our nations’ history:
There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War. We must not allow these pieces of our past to become prologue.
As a result, Feingold supports the setup of a commission to review the way we have treated immigrants during WW2:
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to set up a commission to review the wartime treatment of Germans, Italians, and other Europeans during that period. That bill came out of heartfelt meetings in which constituents told me their stories. They were German-Americans, who came to me with some trepidation. They had waited fifty years to raise the issue with a member of Congress. They did not want compensation. They came to me with some uneasiness. But they had seen the government’s commission on the wartime internment of people of Japanese origin, and they wanted their story to be told, and an official acknowledgment as well.
And as for the right-wing claim that no innocent victims have been unfairly detained under the Patriot Act, Feingold debunks them with this case. It is a case very similar to the government’s xenophobia during WW2:
For example, the FBI arrested as a material witness the San Antonio radiologist Albader Al-Hazmi, who has a name like two of the hijackers, and who tried to book a flight to San Diego for a medical conference. According to his lawyer, the government held Al-Hazmi incommunicado after his arrest, and it took six days for lawyers to get access to him. After the FBI released him, his lawyer said, “This is a good lesson about how frail our processes are. It’s how we treat people in difficult times like these that is the true test of the democracy and civil liberties that we brag so much about throughout the world.”
And Feingold recognizes that a lot of anti-immigrant bias in this country is really racism in disguise:
We who don’t have Arabic names or don’t wear turbans or headscarves may not feel the weight of these times as much as Americans from the Middle East and South Asia do. But as the great jurist Learned Hand said in a speech in New York’s Central Park during World War II: “[T]he spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias . . . .”
Was it not at least partially bias, however, when passengers on a Northwest Airlines flight in Minneapolis three weeks ago insisted that Northwest remove from the plane three Arab men who had cleared security?
The Democratic Party is a party of unity. We are a party which brings all people together regardless of race, gender, religion, creed, nationality, or sexual orientation. We may disagree on how best to do it. But the true Democrats are uniters. People who seek to divide this party or this country on one of these things are not really Democrats.
Feingold goes on to say that it is always easier to want a police state where Big Brother is watching you and purging our society of the terrorists in our midst. It is always easier to look the other was as Bush repeals the 4th amendment than it is to do the work, get involved in politics, and defend our Constitution and our liberties.
I’ll be honest — I didn’t want to do this. I wanted to get a job, get married, and not have to worry about this stuff. But now, I recognize that our survival is at stake. We must either work together to create a new sustainable society in which everyone who works hard and plays by the rules will be financially secure and never have to worry about a medical crisis eating up their life savings OR allow the erosion of our civil liberties and the breakdown of our society once the world runs out of oil thanks to our excessive consumption.
The challenges are daunting. If this had been an ordinary period in our nation’s history, I could have cared less if Hillary ran for office. I voted for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. But with the challenges so daunting, we must not settle for a mediocre candidate like Hillary in the name of winning. We must find the best candidate for the job and campaign for that person. I believe that candidate to be Russ Feingold.
Currently Feingold, along with Senator Kennedy, is fighting for a bill which would allow for earned legalization of undocumented aliens. Senator Kennedy describes the bill here.
Kennedy also stressed that the bill is “a realistic alternative — not an amnesty.”
“There is no free pass, no automatic pardon, no trip to the front of the line,” he said. “But we do provide a sensible plan that will persuade people to come forward to receive work permits and earn legal status. They will pay a substantial fine and go through rigorous security and criminal background checks. Those who want permanent status must pay all their back taxes, learn English, maintain a strong work record, stay out of trouble, and wait their turn.”
Feingold’s remarks:
Senator Russ Feingold also endorsed the call for earned legalization, stating, “Today, millions of undocumented workers live in and contribute to our communities and economy, in Wisconsin and across the country. But while they work hard and contribute in many ways, these immigrants live in fear, each and every day, of deportation and often of exploitation by unscrupulous employers.
“Both for our nation’s security, and to be true to basic American values of fairness and justice, we should bring these workers out of the shadows. We will all be better off if we create a realistic immigration system that recognizes that we need these workers, that allows them to come into the United States legally, and that ensures the government knows who is entering the country.”
He urged Congress to act on the bill, which he said, “would vastly improve border security, and would bring meaningful reform to our immigration system in a way that reflects economic reality and the value of keeping families together.”
While the bill is not perfect — Kennedy does not specify how much in fines the immigrant would have to pay, or if they would have to pay it all at once — it still represents a welcome step in the right direction towards earned legalization.
Feingold also supports the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, a bill which would repeal many of the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act aimed at immigrants. This letter, signed by a diverse group of pro-immigrant groups, describes the provisions of the bill:
End the government’s ability to issue a blanket order closing all deportation hearings to the public and to family members of detainees, while permitting the closure of hearings or a portion of hearings on a case-by-case basis to preserve the confidentiality of asylum applications or when national security interests so require.
Provide minimum due process safeguards to individuals who are jailed on suspicion of immigration violations by giving them timely notice of the charges against them and assure that immigration authorities and judges make fair, individualized bond determinations.
Establish an independent immigration court within the Department of Justice and promote fair hearings by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
Facilitate better law enforcement practices by requiring that the National Crime Information Center database relied upon daily by state and local law enforcement complies with minimum accuracy requirements.
Terminate the troubled National Security Entry-Exit Registration System while encouraging fairness and a concentrated focus on those who pose a threat to the national security or safety of Americans.
Assign reasonable penalties, commensurate to the technical nature of the violations, for non-citizens’ failure to register or provide timely notification of address changes.
Ensure that people who are charged with a crime based upon national security surveillance will see the evidence against them in the same manner as people charged with a crime based upon other kinds of classified information.
Require the government to submit a public report to Congress on data-mining activities in order to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals and to ensure accurate information is collected and used.
Feingold would also support elimination of some of the regressive provisions of a 1996 immigration law, passed by the Gingrich congress and signed by Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton, which has ripped families apart. From Wisdom member Tim Brown, a pro-immigrant group which has worked with Feingold on immigration issues:
Because of the 1996 law, any immigrant, including lawful permanent residents, who ever committed a deportable offense, even non-violent offenses, or an offense committed in the distant past and those for which no sentence was served, can be deported.
Immigration policy reform is more than just talk to me. My family and I are immigrants from Canada, and our journey to permanent residence status has been at best frustrating, and at worst, humiliating. The INS agent asked our then 5-year old Leeanne if “Mommy and Daddy were bad people”. My 7 year old, Shawna was asked if Mommy brought men home with her. We all were then finger-printed. We have had a relatively easy time of it here, but there are many other immigrants out there who are weighing decisions about poverty vs separation of family members, despair in their homeland vs a life of hope in the US, horrendous working conditions vs deportation. This ought not to be so. People of justice know that the plight of the vulnerable touches all of society.
This draconian law, supported by Clinton, allows the deportation of children even if they have lived in the US all their lives:
Armando Garcia, a Mexican who lived here since 1994 spent years trying to legalize his status. Immigration officials gave him and his wife permits to continue to work legally, but they were ordered to remove their 2 young daughters, 10 and 12, from the US within 120 days because they were here illegally. The daughters lived all their lives in the US. (Twin Cities Star Tribune, “INS agrees to help Spanish-speakers more.”). Curtis Aljets, an INS director responded that he wasn’t aware of the family’s situation, but that the INS rarely deports children. Well, I guess we must thank God for small mercies!
As I noted above, immigration does not just affect the immigrant; it affects the wives and children as well.
And the Bush and Clinton administrations have treated undocumented immigrants on a level similar to violent criminals:
It is estimated that are 13,500 INS detainees, most held in local jails housing violent criminals. The Boston Globe recently reported cases of sexual abuse by guards at an INS detention center in Miami. The woman was afraid to tell anyone. “If you say anything about it, they try transferring you or you end up staying in the INS custody longer.” The prison officer pled guilty.
Brown goes on to debunk common myths about immigrants:
Myth: Immigrants take jobs away from Americans.
Fact: Studies have shown that the opposite is true. Many immigrants create jobs. Many immigrants are self-employed and start their own businesses.
Myth: America is being overrun by immigrants.
Fact: The percentage of immigrants in the total population is small. So far, no single decade has topped 1901-1910 for immigration admissions.
Myth: Most immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy.
Fact: Each year immigrants earn $240 billion, pay $90 billion in taxes, and receive only $5 billion in welfare payments.
If you care about immigrants and their well-being, the choice is clear — Russ Feingold has consistently applied the principles of great legal minds like Arthur Goldberg and Learned Hand to the well-being of immigrants in this country. He has consistently worked to increase the rights of immigrants who work hard and play by the rules so their children can have a bright future here. Hillary Clinton`s husband Bill, on the other hand, signed a bill which would allow the Immigration authorities to deport children of immigrants even though they have lived in this country all their lives. Furthermore, she supports NAFTA, which led to the massive influx of immigrants in the first place.