3rd Congressional Candidates on Immigration

There are some issues that will quickly get people talking and even turn into a heated debate. One of those issues, immigration, has been the source of much controversy, especially after Arizona’s decision to adopt a policy that allows law enforcement the right to stop anyone they suspect as being undocumented.

Since, Arizona adopted such a law other states have begun to follow suit, but recently the US Justice Department has sued the state of Arizona calling the law unconstitutional. This move by the Obama administration may suggest that they are pro-immigration, but others argue that the administration hasn’t done enough and even supports policies that are repressive.

During this election year immigration has become a major issue is some parts of the country and according to a study done by the Pew Research Center in early May found that a majority of those surveyed support what Arizona is doing. With that in mind we thought it important enough to take a look at what the 3^rd Congressional Candidates have to say about immigration.

MLive has recently posted a Voter Guide, which includes a list of questions they posed to the candidates, one of which was on immigration. The question that the Grand Rapids Press asked was:

Should there be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the country, or should the nation’s policy be to secure borders only and to rigorously enforce current immigration laws?

Justin Amash’s response to this question was:

The federal government must focus first on securing our borders. Unchecked immigration is a threat to national safety and security. The United States has always welcomed individuals who legally seek to enter our country to work or become citizens, but Congress and the president must make every effort to stop at the border those immigrants who attempt to break our laws.

Immigrants who are found to be here illegally should not be banned from legal citizenship, but they should get in line behind those who have already begun the citizenship process.

This statement by Amash is a slightly revised version of what he has posted on his website.

Bill Hardiman’s response was:

We must have respect for our laws, and a policy which seems to reward illegal actions is unacceptable. I believe this is primarily an enforcement issue. We must get serious about securing our borders.

There are things we can do pro-actively as well. We must look at an improved temporary guest worker program, which could be very beneficial. The H-2 temporary guest worker visa could be streamlined and increased to meet our agricultural employer needs. I believe most Americans are prepared to welcome people who play by the rules, and who demonstrate good faith in living as law-abiding citizens.

Many of our investment immigration visas go unused every year due to red tape and other logistical challenges. We should look at streamlining this process as well, which will allow for a greater influx of investment capital, and also create an environment where following the rules is rewarded.

Hardiman has no position on immigration at his webpage.

Steve Heacock’s response was a shorter version of what he has on his website, which is the longest of any of the candidates running for the 3^rd Congressional District.  Heacock says:

Immigration has a significant impact on national security, state and federal budgets, job creation, agriculture and our basic sense of who we are as a country. We have been and continue to be a symbol of hope for those from around the world who are looking for a better life. But our first obligation is to the safety and well being of our people.

• First, we must secure the border and stop the culture of unlawfulness at the border.
• Amnesty is not the answer and, as it has in the past, would likely only encourage further illegal immigration.
• We must enforce existing workplace and immigration laws.
• Temporary work permits should be used, on a test basis, for jobs that otherwise go unfilled. The family status issue would need to be addressed and we would need assurance that workers would return to their home country after expiration of permits.
• We also need to reform visa, immigration and citizenship services to recognize that we need knowledge workers that often can only be recruited from outside of our country. We harm only ourselves by sending people away just as they are creating intellectual property that can be commercialized.

Louise Johnson did not respond to the Press questionnaire, but she does have a position on immigration via her webpage. In fact, of all the candidates Johnson takes the strongest anti-immigration position and even uses the phrase “Illegal Aliens” as the heading for her position on this issue.

There is a process for becoming a citizen in this country.  And it is a process worthy of the cause and the supreme benefits of being an American citizen. First apply for citizenship.  Then allow the process to work.  Meanwhile, we should provide government officials at every level the tools to enforce our immigration laws. However, local county governments should not have to house illegal aliens indefinitely in their local jails until the federal government decides to act and do it job. This is taxing our already overburdened local governments.  The fact is, the federal government is not acting or doing its job.  Especially in Arizona and the other border states.  Still, a two- or three-week jail period until the federal government arrives on the scene appears reasonable. But our federal government must commit to following its own immigration laws and support states that have passed laws that TOTALLY obey and follow such federal laws, such as Arizona has.  And before Arizona, Rhode Island!

Bob Overbeek’s response to the Press questionnaire is longer than what his website statement reads on the matter of immigration.

We need immigration reform in our country and we need a continued flow of immigrants to our country. Unless one is “native American,” one is an immigrant. This is one of the great strengths of our nation. I am fifth generation Dutch myself. We need federal policy that welcomes immigrants, and I believe that by harnessing immigrants we can smartly grow our workforce and our economy at the same time. We must ensure those who immigrate become part of our system and pay their fair share of taxes if they are to reap the benefits of our society. I don’t support amnesty; however, I want to make sure immigration reform proposals do three things: 1. Ensure there is a clear path to citizenship. 2. Make sure that path clearly states that immigrants must abide by the rule of law. 3. If they are employed that they are paying their fair share of taxes, because there is a cost to our freedom and supporting the system they benefit from.

Democratic candidate Patrick Miles Jr. has no position on this issue at his webpage, but his response to the Press questionnaire in no way can be considered liberal or progressive.

Federal immigration policy and enforcement have been a failure for a generation. But we must take the emotion and rhetoric out of the discussion and focus on the best solutions to this problem.

We are a nation of immigrants and of laws. No one should be rewarded for breaking the law. In the post-9/11 world, we must secure our borders and enforce immigration laws.

If illegal immigrants come forward, have clean records, pay back taxes or a fine, and learn English I am willing to consider giving them legalized status, but they must go to the end of the line in terms of gaining full citizenship behind those who are here legally.

The other Democratic candidate Paul Mayhue also has no information about immigration on his webpage. He did respond to the Press questionnaire and has a slightly more humane view on the matter than the rest of the candidates.

There should be a path to citizenship for people that are legally in the country. We as a country need to sort out the illegal immigrant issues and separate criminal activity from legal activity and respond accordingly to creating paths to citizenship. The borders should be secured for security reasons and threats to our national security. We should be careful about how rigorously we enforce the laws, the concept of arresting a person on reasonable suspicion goes against the grain of our US Constitution, probable cause and due process is how we need to treat this issue. We don’t need to arrest our way out of this issue, employers that hire illegal immigrants create problem in the American workforce.

First, it should be pointed out that all of the candidates use language, which suggests that their view of immigration translates into “illegal’s” (read Mexicans) who are crossing the southern border of the US. This is a very limited and reactionary view of immigration, since people from all around the world immigrate to the US every year.

Second, there is a double standard the US government applies for people applying for immigrant status. For example, for years if you showed up in the US with no documentation and were from Cuba, the US would almost always grant immigration status, but the same has response has not been applied to people coming from Mexico or Central America. This clearly indicates that politics rules immigration policy, not equal humane treatment.

Third, none of the responses that candidates gave reflect the harsh realities of people who come to the US and are undocumented. The risks that people take are tremendous and numerous people end up being sold into a form of wage slavery or are left to die in the desert. Once undocumented immigrants are detained they are often abused by US law enforcement personnel.

Fourth, the question that the Press asks about immigration frames it in such a way as to decontextualize it, thus make it more likely that candidates would respond to themes such as border security and legal issues as opposed to the rights that immigrants have and the positive contributions they have always made to this country.