Thread: Stabenow hit from both sides on aliens

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060 ... -8390r.htm

Stabenow hit from both sides on aliens
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 5, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow is under attack in Michigan for straddling the fence on the immigration bill, attempting to please both sides of an issue that has deeply divided her political base.

Mrs. Stabenow, who is seeking re-election to a second term this year, has come under fire from Republican officials and a major state newspaper for opposing key amendments that would crack down on the hiring of illegal aliens.

Both she and her fellow Democratic Sen. Carl Levin during last month's Senate debate "voted in favor of illegality, in favor of border insecurity," the Lansing State Journal editorialized last week.

Mrs. Stabenow vowed at the beginning of that debate "to vote against any immigration bill that puts Michigan jobs at risk," and in the end she voted "no" on final passage. But now she is being criticized at home and by Republican campaign officials for helping to kill several amendments to the bill that proponents said would reduce illegal-immigrant employment.

"Does voting against requiring employers to verify illegal immigrants help workers?" the National Republican Senatorial Committee asked in a recent broadside against the senator.

The NRSC pointed out that she voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, which said that "guest workers would not need an employer to attest forthcoming employment." His amendment passed 56-43.

The NRSC said she also voted against an amendment that would limit the total number of aliens given green cards to 650,000 per year, including their spouses and children. She also voted to allow illegals to receive Social Security benefits, but against mandating that guest workers with expired visas must leave the country.

"Stabenow wants to have it both ways, but a simple look at her own immigration votes shows that what she says doesn't match up with how she voted," said NRSC spokesman Brian Walton.

In response to the Lansing State Journal attack, Mrs. Stabenow said that the editorial "grossly misrepresented my position on immigration reform," though she did not address the amendment votes that have drawn criticism.

"I sponsored an amendment that would have stripped this guest-worker program from the final bill because it is unfair to Michigan workers, and I will continue to fight its inclusion in any final immigration-reform package," she said in a letter published by the Journal.

While Mrs. Stabenow's votes on the bill appeared contradictory to some, Michigan Democrats said she was striking a balancing act on the measure by casting votes that would appeal to her state's Hispanics, but in the end voting against the entire bill, which much of her party's blue-collar constituencies oppose.

"Some of her votes were cast to appeal to Hispanics and Latin Americans in her base and others to labor unions and big corporations that give her money. This is a balancing act to make all groups happy," said Michigan Democratic pollster Ed Sarpolus of EPIC/MRA.

"She learned from the defeat of former Senator Spence Abraham in 2000 when labor ran all those FAIR campaign ads against him on immigration," Mr. Sarpolus said.

Mr. Abraham, the Republican whom Mrs. Stabenow narrowly defeated, had helped to pass a major increase in H1-B immigration visas for high-tech workers. He then ran into a wave of opposition when the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) accused him of giving Michigan jobs to immigrants.

"It's an issue that could be used in the fall campaign. It's one of those issues you can't win on, but that you can lose on," Mr. Sarpolus said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 6530.story

Immigration debate enters Michigan Senate campaign

By KEN THOMAS
Associated Press Writer
Published June 8, 2006, 4:27 PM CDT


WASHINGTON -- Republicans seeking the nomination to challenge Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., have criticized some of her votes on a Senate measure to reform immigration.

But when it comes down to the final language of the bill, they would have likely reached the same conclusion: a vote against it.

Stabenow was one of four Democrats in the Senate who voted against a comprehensive immigration plan last month, arguing that it failed to do enough to protect American jobs. The measure passed the Senate and now faces uncertainty as House and Senate negotiators seek a compromise.

The Senate bill would tighten border security, provide a guest worker program to bring in new foreign workers and provide a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. A House version is generally limited to border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

"In the end I believed it went too far as it relates to protecting American jobs," Stabenow said. "You have to look in the balance, and my priority was protecting American jobs."

Stabenow has rejected any claims that she supports allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens without returning home, or amnesty. She wrote in the Lansing State Journal that "it is the wrong choice for our economy, rewards illegal behavior, and is unfair to people who have worked hard and come to our country legally."

Two of her Republican challengers, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard and Troy minister Keith Butler, said in interviews last week that they were disappointed the Senate measure did not focus solely on border security and address other immigration aspects separately.

Both said they would have voted against the bill. But they questioned whether some of Stabenow's votes would have protected jobs, pointing to her opposition to an amendment that would have capped the number of aliens who could receive green cards, which confer legal permanent residency.

They also disagreed with her support of a motion that killed a provision preventing illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. from receiving Social Security benefits for work done before they were given a valid Social Security number.

"Too often people get in Washington and think that people won't find out what they're doing," Bouchard said.

Butler raised concerns about the Social Security vote. "She's just playing politics as far as I'm concerned. She's trying to have it on both sides," he said.

The green card amendment would have capped the number issued at 650,000; Stabenow's office said the senator felt that number was too high. Stabenow officials noted that illegal immigrants cannot get Social Security benefits and the measure raised questions about how it might affect legal immigrants' ability to obtain Social Security benefits.

Pollster Ed Sarpolus of EPIC-MRA in Lansing said the debate harkened back to the criticism Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., faced in 2000 for sponsoring legislation to provide more visas for skilled foreign workers to be hired by high-tech companies.

An outside group ran advertising accusing Abraham of allowing the tech companies to hire cheaper foreign workers. While Abraham had to defend himself, Stabenow's vote against the bill in the name of jobs likely protected her from facing similar advertising.

"For her it was a safe vote," Sarpolus said. "It's a reminder of what happened six years ago."

Sarpolus said the Republican candidates, meanwhile, were running the risk of being at odds with Bush, who has sought a comprehensive bill more in line with the Senate plan.

Butler said he disagrees with Bush's position that immigration reform needs to be comprehensive and that the immediate focus should have been on border security.

"His approach that it has to be comprehensive or not at all -- I don't buy that. I don't think it has to be that way," Butler said.

Bouchard said he disagreed with the direction of the immigration debate and would have preferred a focus on border security. But he said if his "party's position is at odds with my state, I'm going to stand up for my state."