We sat down with Dr. Sandra Livingstone (by the way, her website even shows she has a sense of humor, it's DrLivingstoneIPresume.com ) for an interview. But, don't get the wrong impression, just because it was friendly, doesn't mean it was easy. Among the subjects we discussed were immigration and anchor babies, NAFTA, free vs. fair trade, the falling dollar, abortion and what will influence her economic decision-making. We asked specific, hard questions, and gave her no advance time to prep, but Dr. Livingstone didn't flinch. She not only knew her positions, she was able to articulate her reasons for those positions.

And, whew! She talks fast!

A (Potentially) Controversial Position on Immigration

Immigration is a huge and polarizing issue today. And Livingstone has some pretty strong and controversial opinions about the subject. One of her key approaches to the immigration problem is to change what she calls the 'anchor baby' system. That's when a pregnant woman enters the United States illegally, just to have her baby, so that her child will automatically become a US citizen. Livingstone thinks that's wrong. But, how can it be changed short of amending the US Constitution? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution gives full citizenship rights to everyone "born or naturalized in the United States".

Livingstone explained, "The intention of the 14th Amendment was that if you're born in the United States, your parents have either applied for citizenship, permanent resident alienship or they're citizens. So, I don't think it's inconsistent with the 14th Amendment to say, 'If the parents have broken the law to come here to have you, then you are not automatically a citizen.' That's how I would say, because the whole intention of the 14th Amendment - the idea was that you're here and you're born here, not you came across the border and violated the law to be born here."

So, what about the idea that says, 'If you're born here to illegal immigrants, at the age of 18, you can apply for citizenship, but in the meantime, you live with your parents in their home country?'

"I don't know if that's the system I would want," Livingstone replied thoughfully, "I think the system I would want is, 'Let's say you're born here and one of your parents is a citizen, or a permanent resident alien, then you should be a US citizen. But if both parents are illegal, or you only came with one parent and they're illegal, then I would say, 'that person who is born here' could immediately apply for permanent resident alienship, and that's a totally different thing than citizenship. It takes a long time to become a citizen after that, but if you had one parent legal, you'd be automatic, but if you had two parents illegal, you would be eligible because you were able to apply for permanent resident alienship, but that's going to take you a while. That is not an automatic thing. And you would have to rectify your parents' immigration status. So, if you have two illegal immigrants who have a baby here, for that baby to get permanent resident alienship, you have to rectify the parents' status. If they can't rectify it by either a guest worker visa, or permanent resident alienship themselves, that person would not be able to apply for permanent resident alienship at that time until their parents' status is rectified."

"The thing I like about what you said," Livingstone mused, "Is you could do, at the age of 16, say, or majority of 18, that person because they were born here, could apply for permanent resident alien status, not citizenship. If you get permanent resident alien status and then stay 2 years, you can then start your process of naturalization, which I think right now is seven years. So, that person could eventually become a citizen, but it wouldn't be automatic. Because it's like a carrot. There's no stick, it's like, 'run across the border and have your baby' and there are people dying in the desert who are pregnant, because they're trying to get here to have the baby here."

Livingstone related, "I talked to a Homeland Security guy, and he said, 'you can't believe the number of people we find dead on the other side of the border, pregnant women and others who are trying to get here, to have this baby here.' Plus, our healthcare system just can't cope."

Livingstone's mind is obviously focused on the question, trying to decide from which angle to approach it next. "The other thing I think would work - as long as you secured the border, if you don't secure the border, it's totally immaterial - if you said to everyone who is here, 12 million people, 'Look. You do not have to live in fear. You do not have to be exploited, not have minimum wage, not have health coverage, etc, If you come forwrd - if you register, and you can show us you're employed, and your employer will then have to register, you will be given a ticket to work on a yearly basis, immediately. So, if you've got a job in a meat-packing plant, you're going to have a ticket to work in a meat-packing plant."

So, what would happen next? Livingstone continues, "You wil also have the opportunity to apply for permanent resident alienship at the back of the line of everyone else in the process.That means you will have a six-month to one year penalty for coming illegally, but then you be processed, and we know who they are, where they are, their employers have to contribute, they have to contribute, they have to get minimum wage, they can't be exploited, they can't have child labor, you pull it all out of this underground thing that we have right now."

In Yuma at the Mexican border.

One thing that Livingstone is not interested in, is offering a free ride. "If you find them not working, or they won't register because they are a drug runner, they're a coyote, they're a terrorist, they're in criminal elements somehow, those people we could deport. And we could afford to deport those people," Livingstone said, but then added honestly, "But we can't afford to deport everyone, and that's the problem. I believe you probably would get immediately 5 million people to come forward, and get their ticket. It's almost like a guest worker program, but from this point, everyone is already in the border, you have to deal with it. You can't deport them all. A lot of them are doing work we want. But, it's just under the table, and $1 trillion is going out. So, pull them out, the ones who don't come out, goodbye, and then you have, like you say, a system where people who want to come can come legally, above board, you know who they are, how much they're making, they have to contribute, their employer has to contribute, etc. Instead of all this underground thing that's going on."

Livingstone's face softened, as she talked about the people themselves. "And a lot of them are decent people, and what you're going to find is, these wonderful, decent solid, Catholic or Christian families who've got strong family and moral values, a lot of them, who want to be citizens, and who are going to give and contribute to our country. They're not all some wacko, criminal, drugrunner... at least half of those are probably decent, hardworking, family oriented people that we want in this country."

"To me, it's kind of like a middle ground," Livingstone said with compassion in her voice. But, she knows it's a critical problem that must be solved. "Where I want to enforce the law, I want to enforce immigration, I want to rewrite it like you say, guest worker program, visa programs, they can come and work temporarily in industries that say they cannot find American workers. And there are all sorts of industries where they have said, 'No one will take these jobs in Camarillo picking strawberries. They will.' There are industries - meat packing, mainly in the midwest, it's horrible work, and they can't get local farmboys to do it. They won't do it. There is a happy medium here that is humane, but enforces the rule of law and finds a solution to the immigration code which is broken."

Would this mean a rewrite of the 14th Amendment? Livingstone answered, "I don't think so, I think what would probably happen is that you would pass legislation that said, 'If two parents are illegal...' The intention of the 14th Amendment was not that just because you were born here, you are a citizen. If you have parents who brought you here illegally, and I think it would end up being a test case in the Supreme Court. You would pass legislation and it would go to the Supreme Court. And I think they would probably say, right now, with the Court we have, 5-4 that was not the intention of the 14th Amendment. Because you can't violate the law to take advantage of the law. Equal protection is under the law, not the violation of the law. It's also the 14th Amendment."

What About the Fence?

So, we're going to secure the border. How? What kind of fence? Physical, virtual or a combination of both? How much of the border should be fenced off, and how much will it cost?

"I would like both, because in some places down there, there's no way you can put in a fence," Livingstone answered. She had obviously thought about this aspect already. "You've got ravines, you've got canyons, it's very rough topography. Even like the Yuma area, along that particular part of the border, it's true. And that's true for parts of California, Texas and New Mexico, there are areas you can't fence very easily. I would want both types of fences. We already have the right to do it, but I think the Federal government needs to pay for it. The states cannot afford it. How much it would cost, I don't know, because I've seen so many figures, I don't know what the accurate figure is."

Livingstone nodded her head. "I talked to a guy, he is down there now, I met him on an airplane a couple of weeks ago, he is working in Yuma on the fence, he is a contractor for Homeland Security. He's spending about 90% of his time doing an environmental assessment and all that stuff, and he said he's spent all this time because they don't want to get sued. But he explained to me that in all the areas where they have solid fence, the animals can still get through, that we're worried about their migrating, the jaguar, pronghorn sheep, etc., and he said in other areas, where you can't put the fence, that's the most natural area where they congregate anyway. So, a combination. And I want geophysical surveillance equipment because they're drilling, and mining underground tunnels and stuff, so we need a geophysical seismic equipment where we can tell if the Mexican government or these other people are suddenly creating a five mile tunnel under San Diego."

Livingstone Talks NAFTA

Since the passage of NAFTA, unemployment has decreased significantly. In January of 1994, the rate of unemployment was 6.6, and in January of 2008, it was only 4.9. Not only have we added enough jobs to cover a growing population and many previously unemployed people, the jobs pay better too. And we've had increased wages. And, since the United States had the lowest tariffs in North America, we actually gave up the least by the deal. So, we asked Livingstone, what is so bad about NAFTA?

"Here's my problem with NAFTA. Chapter 2 is my problem with NAFTA," Livingstone said without hesitation. "Chapter 2 contains all of the special arrangements with Mexico. I don't believe our unemployment rate has gone down because of NAFTA, first of all. It's gone down across the board, across the country, not just this area that NAFTA's heavily affected by. I have talked to a lot of corporations that have shut down because of NAFTA. Chapter 2 allows Mexico no environmental standards, no product safety standards, no product reliability standards or testing, no marine mammal protection, no pollution standards, no minimum wage standards, no labor standards, so there's child labor there. Basically no regulation. And if you take the cost of those regulations on US businesses or Canadian businesses, the cost is so great that companies have gone to Mexico, a lot of companies. This isn't just true of American companies, it's true of multi-national enterprises, headquarters and factories here in CD1 and in this whole area of the southwest. They've all gone down to Guadalajara and other places in Mexico, because they don't have to worry about these regulations and they can make more money."

Livingstone stopped to explain it even further. "So, what it's done, is, there's an unlevel playing field. We have to abide by all these standards - same with the WTO (World Trade Organization) - look at the WTO and look at China or India, we comply with all of our EPA standards and all the other standards that we have, China and India have none. They have no legal infrastructure to enforce it. So they don't have to worry about all of these costs associated with these standards that we have to. And it affects businesses, factories, light engineering, heavy engineering, industrial, even parts manufacturers. Like I gave an example of a computer chip board factory up by Flagstaff that had to shut within 9 months of NAFTA because they could make it down there at a third of the cost."

"So, my problem is, there's free trade and there's fair trade," Livingstone said, finishing her thoughts. "And I feel that the free trade of NAFTA and the unbalanced standards for Mexico vis-à-vis US and Canada make it more difficult for US businesses to stay in CD1 and employ people in CD1. And it's just attracted so many companies to Mexico."

So, would Livingstone get rid of NAFTA entirely, or rewrite it?

"I would rewrite it," she answered promptly. "I believe in free trade, I'm not a protectionist, because I believe there are benefits to the US in true fair, free trade agreements. I can't point to any true fair, free trade agreement right now in the world, because WTO is not, NAFTA is not, I don't think CAFTA would be, as it's been written. So, I'd like to see that completely amended to bring in line an even playing field."

"I give one example," Livingstone said. "There was a case between Mexico and the US on tuna, and it was basically a US company saying, 'This is unfair to us, because we have to watch out for dolphins, we have to only take tuna that are of a certain size and age, so we leave the stocks there, we have to have certain types of humane hooks and nets, and there's no regulation on Mexican fishermen for this.' And the NAFTA panel said, 'too bad, chapter 2 allows Mexico to have no restrictions on any of these things.' So, it's actually affecting our fishing, because they're taking young tuna, they're killing dolphins - that's affecting the whole environment of the marine mammal system, they're also killing sea lions and seals with these nets. So, I want to see, if we're going to try to protect those stocks, those fish stocks, and if we're going to try to protect the marine mammals and we're going to try to affect the oceans and the whole ecosystem there, they should do it too. That's a fair agreement. And that means that everybody's on a same equal playing field."

Is the answer more regulations on Mexico, or fewer regulations on US companies?

"Both," Livingstone answered. "Because I think some of the standards we have, especially in California, are so high, that it becomes so unequitable between the two that you're driving companies out of areas where you have workers and where you can have industry. So, to me it should be rewritten to bring it in line with fair trade."

And speaking of fair trade - does Livingstone have the same definition of fair trade as the unions do?

'No, no, no, no," Livingstone said with a short laugh. "I'm not referring to that, I'm talking about fair, little 'f'. As it's defined. Fair and just and equitable."

The Falling Dollar & Free Trade

Speaking of free trade, does Livingstone think that free trade is the cause of the falling dollar? After all, the European Union has a strong currency, desoite the fact that they actually have a broader free trade policy than the US. Is it accurate to attribute the falling dollar to free trade?

Livingstone shook her head, before she started in on her economic explanation. "That's only one aspect. One aspect is this NAFTA here, one aspect is this imbalance of trade, this huge imbalance of trade with China and India is killing us. And we can't produce products for the price that they can. So we have a lot of what I would call, 'dumping' and under traditional international trade rules, I would say that dumping is when a country puts products into another country's market at below the fair market value of what it cost them to make it. This is happening with China because it's a state-run country, and they own most of the means of production, it's not privately owned. So, when you're dealing with a Communist country like that - India's a little different, it's a "democracy" loosely defined - you can't compete. Because you've got the state-owned means of production, they're subsidies going on there that you can never compete with."

She stopped to take a breath. "If we went back to the the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), and we took the imbalance of trade with China, just that one, and said, 'Ok, how would this fare under GATT, whether it's GATT 1 or GATT 2,' it wouldn't. Because you've got dumping. We would have had counter veiling duties that we could have placed on, which under the free trade you can't do the counter veiling duty system you used to do under the GATT. So, you've got dumping, the counter veiling system is gone, the tariff is gone, the import restrictions are gone, and a lot of that was used to control inferior or dangerous products. Now we have inferior and dangerous products on the market here, more than we even know."

Livingstone gave an example to explain what she meant. "We know about the toothpaste, the dogfood, the lead products, the toys. We don't know about other things that were called to my attention. Like I bought my husband a rotary table saw. And he's been using it for 9 months or something. We suddenly got this notice from Home Depot saying, 'Sorry, but this was made in China, and we now realize they didn't put any safety mechanism on the saw, and it flies off, and they haven't tightened all of the bolts and all those things...' And my kids go into the workshop, and if they don't have that mechanism, you think it's locking the safety blade, it doesn't work, so please return it. And how many more are there like that, that we don't know about yet because we haven't had a catastrophe?"

"So, the falling dollar is because of unfair trade agreements, imbalance of trade with countries like China, which is huge, the biggest we've ever had, and the EU has it, too," Livingstone stated. "The subprime mortgage crisis, which devastated our housing market and has caused billions of dollars to come off housing prices. But also, the fast foreclosures, credit ratings totally destroyed by individuals so they can't get back into houses, the property tax base is reduced, so the amount that the states can put towards infrastructure has been greatly reduced. The confidence level, because all we have now is the confidence level. We lost the gold standard in '73, and when we did that, our whole economic system, and it wasn't even globlized to that much of an extent back then, our whole system turned to confidence. When you have investors looking, do they continue to invest in your dollars, if they're looking at subprime mortgage crisis, Bear Stearns Investment Bank having to be bailed out by the federal government, stimulus packages because of the number of foreclosures, two million at least, another million or more this year, housing prices going down, which is where a lot of Americans have looked for their ATM, where they look for their value, their personal asset value, etc., the confidence has gone down so low. Also the Iraqi War and the worry about funding it, the $9 trillion deficit, with $100,000 every ten seconds being added to it, borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia. There are so many aspects, it's not just the trade. The trade is one piece of a huge puzzle. An imbalanced budget is just devastating us."

And of course, the current energy and fuel prices are just adding to the problem. As Livingstone noted, "The price of gas and oil, which is absurd, is also driving it. All these other countries know. And a lot of our investment in dollars has been the Middle East. Now the Middle East knows we don't have the money to pay for the fuel we need, and we're not allowing ourselves to exploit the resources to find the fuel we need."

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

supporter
written by KathyLopez, August 03, 2008

Sandy writes about more of her positions on issues at drlivingstoneipresume.com.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1