by John Freitas
I recently wrote my Senators expressing my views on the proposed immigration bill and urged them to vote no.
A couple of days ago, I received a response letter from Senator Diane Feinstein, which consisted of six and one half pages, listing her reasons for supporting the bill.
Because of the length of the letter, I am only going to quote some of the points she makes and the responses I am sending her.
Libby would say I am probably just being touchy. But I found this form letter to be condescending and the way it was written seemed to assume a lot about the people she would have to send it to. Namely, she doesnt seem to believe that anyone who would oppose this bill is very well informed nor would they have any real life experience with illegal immigration. She concedes that the bill is not perfect but feels it is a good compromise. She used the words bipartisan bill as if this was some magical phrase which somehow transforms a bad idea into a good one.
Here are some excerpts from the letter, with my responses.
Dear Mr. Freitas:
Thank you for writing to me about the current immigration reform debate now going on in Congress.
I understand there have been mixed reactions to the bipartisan bill that is now being considered in the Senate and that there are very strong feelings about this issue. I believe that while this bill is not perfect, it is a good compromise. The current immigration system is not working-our borders are broken, our national security is compromised, and there is no feasible way to identify and deal with the 10 to 12 million undocumented people now living in the United States.
Mixed Reaction Yes, there does seem to be mixed reaction, and it seems to be leaning against, significantly. This bill is not a good compromise as it, like the last bill of its kind, will not be enforced. You say that there is no feasible way to identify and deal with the 10 to 12 million undocumented people now living in the United States.
If municipal police departments were allowed to work in conjunction with Immigration services, many of these people would be identified and could be investigated and deported if found to be breaking the law. This is the same practice we use in identifying our citizens who have broken laws. If there is no way to identify and deal with the 10 to 12 million who are already here, how do you propose to collect the fines from the people as you pardon them for breaking our laws?
I have served on the Immigration Subcommittee for over a decade, and while there have been many partial attempts to address immigration issues, this is the first comprehensive bill that has a chance to fix and reform the entire system. This bill is the toughest Ive seen in my fifteen years as a U.S. Senator.
It adds 14,000 new border patrol agents over 5 years, 200 immigration prosecutors, enhanced border surveillance and fencing, and detention facilities that can house 27, 500 undocumented people at a time.
It creates tough new penalties for people who enter the U.S. illegally in the future. It also cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers- providing for employer fines of up to $75,000 per unauthorized worker.
I served as law enforcement officer in Southern California for two decades and have seen that the existing laws are not enforced, largely because of pressure from special interest groups, “The Race” (La Raza). Employers are required to insure that their employees have Social Security Cards. Any illegal alien who comes across the Mexican border knows to go to MacArthur Park in Los Angeles and you can buy the documentation needed to get a Social Security card. I am talking about the park itself, not the Mexican Consulate which is located across the street from the park.
Had you been in the Senate in 1986 you would have noticed, I assume, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. As the Mayor of a major California City, I would assume you still took notice of it. Well, this Current bill is largely a recapitulation, in spirit if not in actual wording, of that bill. It causes one to ponder, why didnt that bill work? We were told then, that it was going to correct the immigration woes.
This time period was within the time period I cite as my two decades in law enforcement in a major Southern California City.
After the 1986 bill passed, many employers who questioned the documents of people already working or applying for employment, and for their trouble, they found themselves sued by the ACLU, for discrimination. I have heard many say, go after the employers and I would agree with that, if you have put into place a vehicle for employers to verify, without fear of repercussion, a potential employees legal status. If, having that, an employer continues to hire illegal aliens; he or she should be punished. Without such a vehicle, you will find it difficult to collect those proposed $75,000 fines legally, as employers will have a built in defense.
With the addition of these 14,000 new border patrol agents, I would guess that will keep the USAGs office very busy micro-managing the operations of the Border Patrol.
Finally, the bill creates a limited guest worker program. This program will ensure that individuals who want to come to work in the United States in the future will have a reliable and safe method to do so. Having a workable temporary worker program is important to prevent future individuals from coming to the U.S. outside of legal channels and creating a new class of illegal immigrants.
Really, how? We are going to allow illegal aliens who are already here and have established an identity, to stay and work on a path to our most treasured asset, Citizenship, and as citizens eligible for minimum wage, not what they are getting now. Won’t that cause even more “undocumented people to come in and work at a lower wage?
Hypothetically, if a terrorist had come here illegally or just over stayed on his visa and was attending flight school, tell me how this bill would identify and deport him? It seems more likely to allow him to stay with a legal status.
I agree with a workable, manageable guest worker program. But not until we have identified those who have already broken our laws and expelled them and secured our borders. This bill is a slap in the face of every immigrant who has waited and tried to immigrate legally.
Her parting shot which, I found very condescending, was…
While it is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize it is harder to stand up, take on the tough issues, make the hard decisions and do what is right to fix our immigration system. I want to commend Senators Kennedy, Spector, Salazar and Kyl for their hard work in undertaking this difficult issue and crafting this important legislation.
Sidelines?? Senator, as someone who was on the front lines for two decades, and having seen the opposition from those in other law enforcement agencies, including the border patrol on this issue, I can tell you that from my standpoint, you in the Senate are not even in the stadium, let alone on the sidelines. And speaking of being on the front lines, what do the people in the Border Patrol feel about this legislation? Are you implying that they are just on the sidelines? Dont they question the merits of this legislation? Wouldnt they be experts that you in the Senate would want to listen to on this matter? As far as making hard decisions They have to make them daily, and with much more at risk than any of the people whom you have mentioned in the Senate.
It is very obvious to anyone who has studied history, that this bill will do nothing to secure our borders or our nation, it is just a opportunity for some in the Senate, and sadly, this President to continue to pontificate on what is good for the unwashed masses (you know, your constituents) While appearing to do something.
The Senate should Listen to the majority of their constituents and not marginalize them as ignorant or racists or just uninformed, as the content of you letter seems to imply. I continue to urge you to vote no.
Sincerely
John Freitas