Thread: GA: Democratic candidates differ on immigration

Democratic candidates differ on immigration

Published: 07/05/2008


By Walter C. Jones
Morris News Service



ATLANTA - As Georgians celebrate the country's independence from England and are reminded of their heritage as immigrants, the issue of illegal immigration fuels differences among the five candidates for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.


The primary in two weeks gives voters a chance to pick between Jim Martin, Josh Lanier, Rand Knight, Vernon Jones and Dale Cardwell.

Each of the five hopes to get the chance to challenge Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Libertarian Allen Buckley in November.

Chambliss drew criticism from many quarters - even boos at the Republican state convention - for his initial support last year of a plan by President Bush to ease the process for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country to gain citizenship. Chambliss soon backed away from that position, but not before pundits sensed a political vulnerability that may explain why so many people are after his job.


Securing the border


All five Democratic challengers say they favor securing the border as a key step in stemming the tide of illegal immigrants. Jones stresses it must be done before reforming immigration laws.

"The first step to comprehensive immigration reform is to secure the borders and enforce the law," he says on his Web site. But he doesn't offer more specifics, and neither does Martin.

Knight would double the number of border-patrol agents. Cardwell supports continued rotation of National Guard troops in the region along with added fencing and cameras.

Lanier favors adding technical resources but notes that existing federal law prohibits using troops in active law enforcement.


Cracking down on employers


Some politicians advocate stiffer penalties for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Jones' campaign didn't supply an answer when asked about his position, and his statement on his Web site doesn't address employers.

Martin's campaign offered no specifics beyond "crackdown on employers."

The other three advocate some form of employer mandates.

"We must fine individuals who employ undocumented workers, require employers to open jobs to American citizens first, run checks on Social Security numbers of all hires," Knight said.

Lanier and Cardwell would also require validation of Social Security numbers in a federal database.

Cardwell goes further.

"Willful violation of this process should result in heavy fines, and repeated abuse should result in criminal prosecution of illegal employers," he said.


Pathway to citizenship for illegals already in the country


One controversial proposal from Bush would have allowed immigrants who are already here illegally to get expedited treatment for their citizenship applications without having to return to their home countries first.

This issue provides the starkest contrast between the five Democrats' statements on immigration.

Knight would grant citizenship to those here if they pay any back taxes owed and pass a criminal-background check, which is essentially the Bush recommendation.

"Georgia's economy would suffer a major setback if the proposed immigration reform does not include recognition that both a social and economic transition must occur," he said.

Lanier flatly says he opposes a streamlined "pathway to citizenship" outlined in the Bush proposal. Those who do leave would still have to pay back taxes, plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of illegal immigration and pay a fine.

Cardwell said that forced expulsion would be impractical.

"I do not support a 'roundup' of illegals currently employed," he said. "Not only would it create further harm to our economy, but would create an immense expense we simply can't afford."

Yet, he would require them to leave the country before they could apply for citizenship. Plus, he would allow require them to speak English, have job skills in demand and a U.S. sponsor.

Jones and Martin would only say that borders and employers must be brought into line before they would change existing immigration procedures.

"Once we do this, we can then move to address the need for real and comprehensive immigration reform," Martin said.

www.mdjonline.com

Pathway to citizenship for illegals already in the country


One controversial proposal from Bush would have allowed immigrants who are already here illegally to get expedited treatment for their citizenship applications without having to return to their home countries first.

This issue provides the starkest contrast between the five Democrats' statements on immigration.

Knight would grant citizenship to those here if they pay any back taxes owed and pass a criminal-background check, which is essentially the Bush recommendation.

"Georgia's economy would suffer a major setback if the proposed immigration reform does not include recognition that both a social and economic transition must occur," he said.

Lanier flatly says he opposes a streamlined "pathway to citizenship" outlined in the Bush proposal. Those who do leave would still have to pay back taxes, plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of illegal immigration and pay a fine.

Cardwell said that forced expulsion would be impractical.

"I do not support a 'roundup' of illegals currently employed," he said. "Not only would it create further harm to our economy, but would create an immense expense we simply can't afford."

Yet, he would require them to leave the country before they could apply for citizenship. Plus, he would allow require them to speak English, have job skills in demand and a U.S. sponsor.

Jones and Martin would only say that borders and employers must be brought into line before they would change existing immigration procedures.

"Once we do this, we can then move to address the need for real and comprehensive immigration reform," Martin said.

Sounds like they all pretty much support an amnesty in one form or another.

Lanier favors adding technical resources but notes that existing federal law prohibits using troops in active law enforcement.

Not exactly true! Unless martial law is declared, our military can't be used to enforce laws in the interior. However, the military can be used to protect our borders from invasion.