Posted on 01/28/2004 10:46:30 AM PST by yonif
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, recently answered questions from Arizona Daily Star politics writer C.J. Karamargin by phone.
Q: What are your positions on immigration issues?
A: I have co-sponsored a number of bills that would help immigrants. One was a family unity legalization act, which would allow those who had been in the country over five years to legalize their status. And also, it would offer immigrants a path toward citizenship. I've also been a supporter of what's called the U.S.A. Family Act, which would grant permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. five years or more, and this one would offer conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding who have been in there for less than five years. . . . There are some other areas, too, that I've been active in: supporting granting of in-state tuition levels for immigrant students; and federal anti-discrimination protection as well as protection of all the U.S. laws which govern safety in the workplace. . . . Protection of civil rights and civil liberties for immigrant workers and also giving immigrant workers the ability to reunite with their families. Those are some of the places where I'd start and I'd also support what some would know as amnesty.
Q: Would it be a blanket amnesty of the type the president said he is opposed to?
A: Amnesty is something that should be as broad as possible. You want to make it possible for people to be able to participate fully in the life of this country.
. . . So, granted, when you're talking about an amnesty program . . . there would be a lot of details that would have to be worked out because there are so many different types of cases. But generally, I support the principle of amnesty and the right to pursue legal residency.
Q: Last year was a record year for the number of migrants who died in Arizona's deserts. Do you have a plan to help bring an end to these deaths?
A: Well, I've dealt with some of these issues before. One of the things we need to do is to work with Mexico to normalize the flow of immigrants. We need an agreement with Mexico on immigration. . . . It has to be a priority if people are dying to come into the country. I mean, what could be more serious than people who are paying smugglers money to bring them in and . . . this whole system of exploitation.
Q: On another topic important to Arizona, you have said we should withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. Why?
A: NAFTA was written specifically to preclude protections for workers rights, human rights and environmental quality principles in our trade agreements. The United States has lost directly over half a million jobs due to NAFTA. With the impact of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization working together, America has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since July of 2000. I believe that when NAFTA was written, it was written by and for global corporations. One should only look at border towns, take El Paso, and you can see how jobs went right over the border into the maquiladora areas and next thing you know, they move from there. So Mexican workers saw their wages go down and . . . with NAFTA, Mexico became a platform for moving jobs out of this country and into even lower-wage areas than Mexico. . . .
Q: Yet NAFTA was strongly supported by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
A: . . . I wasn't in Congress then and I didn't have a vote on it. But I have been a leader in the Congress in opposing an expansion of NAFTA in two other areas and I mean actually have been a leader in organizing votes against it.
Q: Is your proposal for a department of peace realistic in an age when we are the world's only superpower?
A: Is it realistic? How about if I say it's essential? It's essential.
Q: Why?
A: Because we are in an era when, most people recognize, it is folly to pose as a superpower when there are people in your own country who don't have health care, who lack access to education and retirement security. I want to become the superpower in health care and the superpower in education, and the superpower in retirement security and the superpower in employment.
But when we say that America is a superpower, you're speaking of the military, and you know what? We spend more than the rest of the world put together for military and that's had a real impact on our ability to take care of our other needs in this country.
The whole idea behind the department of peace starts with an understanding of the power of nonviolence, that we can make nonviolence an organizing principle in our own society. And its first application is domestic, through education and through working with community groups and nongovernmental organizations. We would create programs to deal with domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse and expanding to the wider community programs that deal with racial violence, gang violence, violence in the schools, violence against gays, police community relations problems. . . . We just take violence as inevitable and as a matter of fact. . . .
The department of peace rejects the notion that war is inevitable because on an international level we'd work with the nations of the world to create a commitment to peace building through identifying wherever there's conflict percolating through poverty or drought or political instability or whatever. And the United States, working with the world community, can be involved in helping stabilize places.
Q: How does that address global threats? There are a lot of countries out there that might not share your commitment to nonviolence.
A: That's true. And so the department of peace would be a Cabinet-level position; it wouldn't replace the Department of Defense. America has a right to defend herself; it's a foundational principle of the country. We'll defend ourselves. But we'd better know the difference between offense and defense.
Dennis Kucinich: I have co-sponsored a number of bills that would help immigrants. One was a family unity legalization act, which would allow those who had been in the country over five years to legalize their status. And also, it would offer immigrants a path toward citizenship. I've also been a supporter of what's called the U.S.A. Family Act, which would grant permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. five years or more, and this one would offer conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding who have been in there for less than five years... There are some other areas, too, that I've been active in: supporting granting of in-state tuition levels for immigrant students; and federal anti-discrimination protection as well as protection of all the U.S. laws which govern safety in the workplace... Protection of civil rights and civil liberties for immigrant workers and also giving immigrant workers the ability to reunite with their families. Those are some of the places where I'd start and I'd also support what some would know as amnesty... [G]ranted, when you're talking about an amnesty program . . . there would be a lot of details that would have to be worked out because there are so many different types of cases. But generally, I support the principle of amnesty and the right to pursue legal residency.Shows how little there is to separate the so-called Democrats running for president. GWB drew a line in the sand, the entire opposition field got called out and called on their position. No matter how much the president's proposal ticked off some folks (Buchananites; haven't they heard they have their own party now?), it was still just a proposal, and will be written by Congress. Conservative Democrats -- including those who won't support Moslem terrorists entering the US from Mexico -- will prefer Bush' position to those of his opponents. Any votes Bush could potentially lose on his side of the aisle were not that numerous, and don't have a Klandidate to support this year.
And free Birkenstocks for everyone!
When will the Secretary kick off "Operation Babes in the Woods"?
When can we replace the eagle on our US symbol with the lamb?
Will Mullah Omar be allowed to use the Diplomatic Entrance or the general visitor's entrance when visiting the Department?
There once was a goof named Kucinich
Wrong-headed from start to the finish
He had very few fans
For his radical plans
Folks knew that their wealth would diminish
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.