Both Democratic and Republican candidates for the US Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy recognize the importance of immigrants to the Massachusetts economy, according to their responses to a CW Unbound questionnaire. Almost all of the candidates also caution against a sudden withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, but party differences are apparent in their views of US policy toward Cuba.
Five of the six major candidates responded to our questionnaire on issues relevant to the special US Senate election. (Primaries are on December 8, and the general election is on January 19.) We posed 15 questions and began posting their complete responses last week, starting with the first query — “What would be the first bill you’d like to file as a US senator?” — and continuing with questions on education policy.
The campaign of Martha Coakley, a Democrat, acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire more than two weeks ago. Despite our repeated calls to the campaign, however, it did not respond.
Today we are posting answers to three questions about immigration and foreign policy.
Note: CW Unbound has put certain text in bold for emphasis.
Question: Would you support raising the number of H-1B and H-2B worker visas that are granted by the U.S. each year?
Scott Brown (R):
Yes, our immigration system is broken. We need to make changes that would allow people to live and work in the United States legally, instead of breaking the law to come here. Two areas that need special focus are people with highly desirable technical skills and those who are needed for low-skill work on a seasonal basis, such as we experience every summer on Cape Cod. Furthermore, with these changes, I would make sure there is a workable employee verification system in place, with strong penalties for companies that hire illegals.
Michael Capuano (D):
I note that this year’s H1-B cap has not yet been reached. I would not advocate raising the H1-B cap, for skilled specialty workers, with current levels of unemployment. I am more sympathetic to the need for seasonal H2-B workers, but I would prefer exempting returning H1-B workers from the cap [rather than] raising the cap.
I represent a district that lives and thrives on intellectual capital. It is essential for Massachusetts and for our country that we continue to attract and retain the world’s most talented people. It may be better to achieve this goal by making green cards readily available for persons who earn advanced degrees in the United States in the STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics — fields.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes. H-1B visas provide for temporary immigration by highly skilled workers in critical occupations where there is an insufficient supply of U.S. talent — most notably, programmers and engineers. H-2B visas provide for the hiring of temporary seasonal workers in businesses like the resort industry. With adequate protections like a meaningful prevailing wage requirement, these provisions can help American industries where there is truly a shortage of available American workers. Just as crucially, the H-1B program has been structured to make employers who utilize it pay for increased training programs for American workers so that we upgrade our workforce and eventually can meet all our high-wage employment needs internally.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
I support a strong guest-worker program, but believe we need to be thoughtful about the eligibility standards we place on these visas in light of the current employment environment. When 10 percent of America’s labor force is unemployed, we should first look to hire at home. I do, however, support positive immigration — that is, immigration that adds to America’s skill base, helps foster innovation, and creates new job opportunities for working Americans.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Yes.
Question: Do you support the deadline for the removal of US troops from Iraq? Would you like to see a deadline for the removal of US troops from Afghanistan?
Scott Brown (R):
As a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, I’m proud of the job our military has done in Iraq. I would like to see our troops come home as soon as possible, but I would not impose an artificial deadline because that would telegraph our strategy and put soldiers at risk. I also think we should finish the job in Afghanistan by providing the additional manpower and equipment our troops need to be successful there. The last thing we want is for the Taliban to regain control and return to the pre-9/11 days, when al-Qaeda used Afghanistan as a staging area for attacks against Americans.
Michael Capuano (D):
I have long called for the orderly withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. I have also co-sponsored HR 2404, introduced by my friend Jim McGovern, calling for the secretary of defense to present an exit strategy for Afghanistan to the Congress. I have also joined with more than 50 of my colleagues in the House to oppose the deployment of significantly more US troops to Afghanistan. I have spent time in Afghanistan, not just meeting with generals and high officials, but with soldiers on the ground and with Afghan leaders, both national and tribal. There are no easy answers in this difficult and dangerous part of the world. One must consider the ramifications of our conduct there for the future of Pakistan, a nuclear state, with whose civilian and military leaders I have also conferred.
Alan Khazei (D):
I strongly opposed the Iraq War. I support the process to remove all US combat troops from Iraq, and I believe it should be finished as quickly as possible in a way that minimizes danger and disruption. President Obama has committed to this objective, and as a senator I would encourage and strongly support the withdrawal. The US military should invest resources into ensuring that the Iraqis can effectively manage the security environment in their own country.
I do not support an increase in troops in Afghanistan, but I do not think we should set a deadline for their removal at this time. We need to adopt a comprehensive foreign policy strategy, not just a military strategy. I believe we need to get back to our original mission — counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency — and we need to set concrete goals and objectives, be honest about the costs in American lives and treasure, implement a timeline, and develop an exit strategy. Most of all, we have to convince the American people to support our policy going forward. History has shown that if the American people do not support our involvement in foreign conflicts, they are not sustainable. We need a greater focus on aid and development, in recognition of the fact that there is no purely military solution to the problems in Afghanistan. We also need to recognize that most of Al Qaeda is now in Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Kashmir, and elsewhere. Pakistan, because they have nuclear weapons, is the most dangerous. We need a much greater focus on Pakistan, as opposed to Afghanistan.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
I was always opposed to the war in Iraq. I remain opposed to continued American involvement in Iraq and want to see US troops home as soon as is possible.
In Afghanistan, I support the process that the president is currently engaged in. He’s a fact-based president, and I’m encouraged to see that he’s gathering all the facts before making his decision. This stands in stark contrast to the previous administration that came to an answer first and then created the facts to support it later.
I believe that once the president has all the facts, he will see it like I do — that we need to build an exit strategy and return our troops as quickly and safely as possible. Historically, we have never had great success in nation-building since the Second World War. I would be reticent to send more troops to Afghanistan and risk additional American lives (and continue putting the financial strains on our economy).
However, I do believe we can pursue a strategy of counter-terrorism. We still need to actively protect America’s strategic assets, while also ensuring to preserve as many American lives as possible. Many terrorist cells have already moved out of Afghanistan and into other areas, such as Pakistan, Kashmir, and Somalia. I believe we should use our assets to track down these terrorist cells and bring them to justice. We have some of the best technology, brightest minds, greatest resources, and we have the world’s most skilled military. We should find how these terror cells are funded, where they are living, how they communicate, and take them on, using the full range of our capabilities and resources.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Yes [to first question].
I have recently called for a cease-fire in Afghanistan and an “all-party” peace conference in Paris that would include the Taliban. For more details, please visit my website.
Question: Should the federal government restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba?
Scott Brown (R):
No, not until the Castro brothers release all political prisoners and hold free elections.
Michael Capuano (D):
Yes, it is time to end the boycott of Cuba. I have no illusions that Cuba is a liberal democracy, but we have full diplomatic relations with governments whose human rights record is considerably worse. I have often helped constituents seeking licenses from the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Department of the Treasury, which administers the boycott, to establish educational or cultural ties with Cuba. In one recent case, there was excessive delay for a choral society who wanted to share folk songs with their Cuban counterparts. That is ridiculous.
Alan Khazei (D):
Yes. The fact that the Castro family has ruled Cuba throughout the terms of 11 American presidents is compelling evidence that our current approach is not working. We need to lift the embargo and restore full diplomatic relations in order to expose the Cuban people to the American way of life. Once we have free and open relations between the US and Cuba, I believe the Castro regime will fall of its own weight, just as Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union did at the end of the Cold War. A younger generation of Cubans will embrace a new era of relations with the United States.
Steve Pagliuca (D):
Yes. Our current policy is a Cold War hangover that is damaging both to America and the people of Cuba.
Jack E. Robinson (R):
Yes, but only after a plebiscite which allows the Cuban people to choose among other options, Statehood. Cuba becoming the 51st State would fulfill a goal espoused by Thomas Jefferson over 200 years ago.