Sen. Feinstein’s Position on Immigration Bill

I was surprised by the bias and outright error in Frank del Olmo’s column regarding my position on illegal immigration (Commentary, June 30). Frankly, his analysis of my position is downright wrong.

The column makes no reference to the fact that in 1994 I publicly opposed Prop. 187, even though I was genuinely convinced at the time that it could cost me my reelection. I had decided I would rather lose an election than not fight against something that I believed was wrong--nearly 400,000 elementary school children would be thrown out of school and onto California streets under Prop. 187. At that time, I stated my belief that Prop. 187 was immoral and unconstitutional. That remains my position today.

Since that time, I have authored legislation to control illegal immigration, forcefully supported appropriations to increase our border patrol by more than 40% and have worked long and hard as a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration to help develop a strong but fair bill to control illegal immigration--which I believe the Senate bill to be.

The Senate bill does not contain the federal version of Prop. 187, but, unfortunately, the House bill does. I remain strongly opposed to inclusion of the 187 provision (known as the Gallegly amendment) in the final bill. If the Republicans will allow an honest vote on the measure in the conference committee, I believe we have a good opportunity to delete it from the final bill.

My understanding is that the reason the bill has not been allowed to go to conference is that there is disagreement among Republicans over the Gallegly amendment. To the best of my knowledge, all Democrats are united in wanting the amendment excluded from the final bill, myself included. I know that on the Senate side there are some Republicans who want it excluded as well.

It is very important that this legislation be allowed to go to conference and be voted on. I would urge readers to write to Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Speaker Newt Gingrich, to urge them to proceed with the conference committee and get on with the task of reconciling the differences in these two bills.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

D-Calif.

* There has been much to-do on illegal immigration lately, driven primarily by the Clinton and Dole presidential campaigns. This is a hot political issue, especially here in Southern California.

It seems to me, however, that our political leaders have forgotten that when one uses the stick, one must also use the carrot. Individuals will not respond to heavier border patrols, or to threats of prohibited education for their children. Individuals will respond to an innovative reward system set up to recognize those that waited for their turn at the gate. Examples might include public housing assistance (as needed), free immediate language lessons, Social Security sign-up and employment assistance.

PATRICK J. REARDON

Mission Viejo