Void Sticker

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Response to Feingold

Now, here it is, my response to Senator Feingold:

Dear Senator Feingold,

I recently sent you an e-mail requesting you not support amnesty, and you obviously didn't get the point. By supporting amnesty (the Judiciary Committee bill, in your language), you are DISRESPECTING American citizens and LEGAL immigrants alike. Giving ILLEGAL immigrants (i.e. criminals) a back-door so that they can "earn a path to permanent legal status" (your words) is NOT acceptable. While I do NOT support sending them to American prisons, as that is not where they belong, I DO support sending them back to their countries of origin. By this, I do not mean send the Mexicans back, or send the Hispanics back, I mean send ALL illegal immigrants (i.e. those who came here illegally or stayed here illegally) back to their countries of origin. This is not a racial issue, this is an matter of LEGALITY, of which you should, as a law-maker, have a better understanding.

I agree that securing our borders (Strengthening is not enough, one extra man looking out for illegal immigrants and turning one such away would qualify as "strengthening"; locking our borders up TIGHT is what we need.) is a priority. As you can see from this article, your offers of amnesty are only encouraging the problem.

The shelter's manager, Francisco Loureiro, said he has not seen such a rush of migrants since 1986, when the United States allowed 2.6 million illegal residents to get American citizenship.

This time, the draw is a bill before the U.S. Senate that could legalize some of the 11 million people now illegally in the United States while tightening border security. Migrants are hurrying to cross over in time to qualify for a possible guest-worker program -- and before the journey becomes even harder.

However, you have gravely misjudged some very important points in your assessment of the situation:

In your response to me you said, "It would strengthen border security, which is vital, while also creating a system that allows law-abiding non-citizens to enter the country legally to work when there is truly a need for their labor, and that
deals with the "shadow population" of undocumented immigrants who are already here."

I admit there are "law-abiding non-citizens" in this country. However, these law-abiding non-citizens are DOCUMENTED immigrants who are here legally; the "shadow population" of undocumented immigrants are NOT law-abiding non-citizens. They have BROKEN THE LAW by coming or staying here ILLEGALLY.

You said, "I do not support the immigration reform bill recently passed by the House, H.R. 4437, nor do I support Senator Frist's bill, S. 2454. These bills would criminalize millions of people who are undocumented or who have provided humanitarian assistance to the undocumented."

"These bills would criminalize millions of people who are
undocumented..." you said. Criminalize? Criminalize?!? No, sir! I'm sorry. They criminalized themselves when they came or stayed in this country illegally. We don't need any new laws to criminalize these millions of people; they are already criminals, Mr. Feingold. That is what being an illegal immigrant is all about! And, Mr. Feingold, I have to say that playing the semantics game and calling them "undocumented aliens" doesn't change that fact. They are criminals, due to the fact that they BROKE OUR LAWS!!!

You also said, "In other words, people who come forward and
play by the rules would be able to earn a path to permanent legal

The problem with this is that they've already BROKEN the rules. It's too late for them to "play by the rules," Mr. Feingold. If they were willing to play by the rules, they wouldn't be here. You wish to change the rules, so that perhaps they might be willing to play by them. I have to wonder, why? It's couldn't be out of concern for the American people. The American people want them to play by the rules that are already established. It couldn't out of concern of Wisconsinites (you know, those pesky constituents you're supposed to represent), because they want them to play by the rules that are already established. All I can think, it that you're doing it because law-breaking non-citizens are more important to you that those pesky people you've been elected to represent. If not that, then what? Could it possibly be that you, like your bought-and-paid-for Republican counter-parts, are equally beholden to the businesses that just don't want to let them go?

So, that leads us to this quote: You said, "The Judiciary Committee bill also would create a guest worker program that allows employers in the future to turn to foreign labor, but only when they cannot find American workers to do the job."

Do you know what the problem with this statement is, Mr. Feingold? It's not a complete sentence! You have to say it like this for it to be accurate: "...but only when they cannot find American workers to do the job for the poor wages they're willing to pay." There, that's better! You see, Americans are hard workers and do messy, yucky, laborious jobs all the time! The thing is, they get paid a living wage for doing so. These businesses that complain they can't find American workers to do their jobs are NOT offering a living wage, and that's their real problem. Take away the cheap, illegal labor, and then they'd have to offer a decent wage or close their doors. Yes, prices would go up, but then again Americans could afford it then. See how simple that is?

You said, "We must not create a second class of workers subject to lower wages and fewer workplace protections, which would hurt all workers by driving down wages for everyone."

And all I can say is, "Too late!" You've already done that and the Judiciary Committee bill which you so insistently support would continue to do that. Then again, I bet you realize that more fully than I do. In fact, I'd bet you plan on that! The thing I really couldn't get was, why? Sure, the answer for the Republicans is easy enough; they've sold out to the big businesses who stand to profit from cheap labor. But, what do the Democrats, and yourself especially, stand to gain from insistently lowering the standard of living of American citizens? The only answer I could come up with is it's for votes. Not only are you trying to "steal" the "Hispanic" vote (who, tending towards religious values, really doesn't like the whole abortion thing) away from the Republicans, but you're also securing your future "poverty" votes by ensuring more Americans live in poverty and thus need the assistance that the government so generously provides to Americans and law-breaking non-citizens alike.

In closing, Mr. Feingold, I'd like to say that while I know you genuinely do not care what I think (After all, I've never added anything to your war chest and I no longer believe what you say, but instead pay attention to what you do.), you still have reason to pay attention to what I say. Not only am I one of your constituents who actively participates in the voting process, but I have a voice and I use it. Some of those people who listen to me are some of the same who are still seriously considering voting for you should you make it through the Presidential nomination process. While they do not always agree with me, and often truly disagree with me, they do listen to me and they do respect me and they DO agree with me that amnesty is NOT in the best interests of America and her citizenry. In fact, this letter was written more for them than for you, since I already know you're not going to listen to my voice by itself. You say, "Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future." But you don't mean it. You know that and I know that. However, you might care a little bit more about those people who might actually vote for you and what they think of this whole amnesty process. I suggest you take a look at my blog (http://hazardouspastimes.blogspot.com/2006/04/response-to-feingold.html) to find out (the links also work there). You might be surprised at how poorly your supporting amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants goes over.

Stephanie XXXXX


At 4/16/2006 3:13 AM, Blogger Joey said...

Wow! Stellar!

My first reaction was to say, "She's an independent? This sounds so Republican! As does half of what she says."

Then I remembered: it may sound Republican, but the reality doesn't seem to reflect that. The reality is that far too many Republicans aren't gutsy enough to stand up for what's right, for what's conservative, for the people who volunteered their butts off to get them into office in the first place. The reality is that Tom Tancredo is a rare breed.

The reality is that the Republican Party's leadership has lost its way. As I've traveled 19 counties in Wisconsin, spending time with grassroots volunteers, and reading resolutions passed at county caucuses, I've been reminded that Republicans at the grassroots remain true conservatives. It's their leaders who've gone off-kilter.

I just hope the base starts to wake up and make those leaders pay the price. Either that, or a solid third party will have to rise up. Or independents will have to become electable. Or....

At 4/16/2006 7:07 PM, Blogger Stephanie said...


I could be a Republican except for three main issues of disagreement:

1) BIG business; while I don't have a problem with them, perse, I do have a problem with the government turning a blind eye while they break the law and I do have a problem with the government giving away money to them. This happens at all levels of government and it often happens irregardless of which of the Major Two are in charge; so it excludes the DNC as well as the GOP in my book (contrary to what most Dems believe).

2) Environmental issues; linguistically speaking conserve is part of conservatism. I believe we have a duty to be good custodians of our environment. Now, I'm not insanely environmental. If it's a choice between lumberjacks trying to make a living and a spotted owl, then I choose the lumberjacks. If it's a choice between a big, deadly, disease-infested black swamp and people, then I choose the people. However, when it's a choice between what we're doing to the Great Lakes and living and managing ourselves more responsibly, I think we should be more responsible. Again, both the DNC and the GOP lose out with me here, for opposite reasons (and sometimes not so opposite, *ahem*Doyle!*cough*).

3) And this is the biggie for me... I believe in America. I believe this government should be OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE. It's not. Neither the DNC nor the GOP want it to be. They both sabotage that any chance they get. And, I'm sick of it.

So, while I frequently vote for the Republican candidate for lack of choice, I'm not a Republican. Serious changes would have to happen within the party before I could be a Republican and that's why I'm a member of VOID.

I firmly believe that Americans are not going to tolerate their abuse governments much longer, and am working to channel that into productive, effective, positive change.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home