SD-32: Jennifer Mello on the Special Session

by: Luis

07/18/06 @ 06:44:40 PM MDT

I am a blogger who participates at SquareState.net and other sites.  I am a registered Democrat in District 32.  I have a question for all three candidates, the response to which will dictate my vote in the primary.  I also intend to post responses to this question on the blog SquareState.com. [sic]  Here is my question:

You are all vying to succeed Senator Dan Grossman.  This week, Senator Grossman denouced the racism he saw in the immigration special session and voted against the immigration bills that were supported by the Democratic party leadership.  Do you agree with Senator Grossman's stand, or would you have supported the immigration bills that were passed in the special session?

Luis

So far, of the three candidates, only Jennifer Mello has responded.  (As far as I can tell, she is also the only SD 32 Dem who has states her position on immigration on her website.)  Below the jump is her response to my e-mail.

Dear Luis,

Thanks for the chance to answer such an important question. I appreciate
that you plan to post my answer and respectfully request that you do so in
its entirety.

I want to be crystal clear: racism of any sort and any time is wrong. Of
course, I would join Sen. Grossman in denouncing any racist comments made
during the course of the Special Session - or any other time.

Immigration is a complicated issue that deserves thoughtful, reasonable
policy solutions, not 30-second soundbites that are designed to polarize
voters. I fully believe that Governor Owens called the Special Session for
political reasons. I say that because the truth is that there isn't a great
deal the state can do to effectively address immigration. That's the federal
government's job and it's incredibly frustrating that they are shirking
their responsibility.  For goodness sake, we don't even have any really good
data about the use of non-emergency state services by undocumented workers.

At the federal level, I support a guest worker program. Immigrants come to
the United States for the most understandable of reasons - to earn a living
so they can support themselves, their families and their communities. On the
other hand, we can't deny that our failure to hold businesses accountable
for employing undocumented workers has kept wages low both for undocumented
workers and for U.S. citizens. A properly designed guest worker program that
provides a path to citizenship can protect immigrants from exploitation,
regulate the labor market and enhance national security.

During the Special Session, I probably would've voted for HB 1023. Not
because I think it was an ideal bill - far from it. But because it
represented the best possible compromise on a tough policy and political
issue. To ask for proof of eligibility, when properly and carefully
implemented, is reasonable and it would have been much worse to have a
poorly worded ballot initiative that opened a litigation floodgate. And I'm
proud that Democrats were able to protect children. I also would've
supported the bills that: 1) made the act of threatening an individual with
reporting illegal status to extort money a felony; 2) made the use of
threats regarding status to coerce an individual to perform involuntary
labor or servitude a felony; and 3) holds employers accountable for hiring
undocumented workers and denies state economic development assistance to
those who knowingly break the law.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you would like any additional
information. You can always call me at [number omitted]. I'd greatly enjoy the
chance to discuss this issue with you and hear your perspective.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Mello

I hope the SquareState community will join me in thanking Ms. Mello for taking the time to respond to my question.