<div>All,</div> <div> Mike Crapo is to be congratulated for not going along with the Bush/Kennedy/McCain Amnesty for illegal immigrants. I hope those of you who agree with his stance will take a moment to thank him for his vote. </div> <div> Unlike Larry Craig, Crapo actually tried to reflect the wishes of his constituents on this issue.</div> <div> See below for his position, etc.</div> <div> TL<BR><BR>Mike Crapo <BR>U.S. Senator <BR>Idaho</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <div align=center><IMG height=125 src="http://crapo.senate.gov/images/newsletter/banner.jpg" width=730 border=1></div> <H2 align=center><STRONG>AMERICA DESERVES BETTER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION</STRONG></H2> <div>As you may know, last night the U.S. Senate approved a comprehensive immigration reform package on a vote of 62 to 36. I voted against <A
href="http://crapo.senate.gov/legislative/vote_record.cfm">S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006</A>, and wanted to take this opportunity to share my thoughts about this legislation. I have heard from many of you who share my concerns with incentives in this bill for further illegal immigration, high costs, and the substantial burden that the legislation would place on hard-working Americans to fund the bill.</div> <div>Immigration is an issue of great concern for all Idahoans. A number of Idaho industries express a need for a feasible guest worker program through which foreign workers can be employed. At the same time, Idahoans are concerned with the uncertain social and economic effects that illegal immigration has on our state and country.</div> <div>The legislation passed last night permits all illegal immigrants and future foreign workers who enroll in the temporary worker program to be placed on a pathway to citizenship. Additionally, it
provides exemption from immigration caps to the spouses and children of those in the U.S. illegally who would be eligible for permanent residency under the legislation. For a detailed look at the legislation and the amendments that were considered, please go to (website address).</div> <div>At the core of the national character of the United States stand two principles: One, we are a nation of immigrants; within our borders every culture and ethnicity in the world is represented. Almost all who live here can easily trace their ancestry to a foreign country. Two, we are a peace-loving and law-abiding society. The United States, more than any other country, has a stable political and economic system because we respect the rule of law that maintains the peace and prosperity we enjoy.</div> <div>I am aware of the detrimental impact that illegal immigration has on the economy and local communities. My record on immigration issues throughout my tenure in Congress has been
consistent. I support aggressive border enforcement and have supported initiatives in the past to increase the number of border patrol agents operating on our borders and in the Pacific Northwest. I have also voted to enhance our abilities to stop illegal crossing of our borders. I oppose amnesty programs and am committed to ensuring that a person should not gain an advantage or benefit toward citizenship or legal permanent resident status as a result of illegal entry into the U.S. A rational immigration policy should be built on several important principles:</div> <UL> <LI>First, the United States must commit the resources necessary to have the strongest border enforcement realistically possible. Preservation of the integrity of our borders is essential to both a sensible guest worker program as well as our national security in the context of the war against terrorism. When we have a stable and manageable guest worker and immigration system, we will be able to ensure
that those who come to our country to work temporarily, or to remain permanently, do so within a system that protects their human rights and safety. Unfortunately, the Senate rejected an <A href="http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2006/051606bordersecurity.htm">amendment by Senator Isakson</A> that would have prohibited the implementation of any guest worker program that grants legal status to those who have entered the country illegally until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational. I supported this ammendment. <div>The Senate adopted <A href="http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=255759&&">Senator Sessions' amendment</A> to increase "real fencing" by 370 miles and add 500 miles of vehicle barriers, the House passed a bill requiring at least 700 miles of "real fencing", a more likely needed amount to secure
the 2,000 mile long border. </div></LI></UL> <UL> <LI>Second, such a system should not reward illegal entry into the U.S. No person who breaks the law and enters the U.S. without proper documentation should be rewarded in any way for illegal entry. Amnesty in its various forms falls into this category, and I remain opposed to it. Granting amnesty or other benefits to those who entered the U.S. without proper documentation is unfair both to American citizens and to those who have gone through legal channels for immigration to the U.S. As noted by <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html">former Attorney General Ed Meese</A> in the New York Times on May 24, 2006: "Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but
gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties."</LI></UL> <UL> <LI>Third, an efficient and workable guest worker program must be developed that will provide employers with a reliable and legal system to provide employment opportunities to guest workers.</LI></UL> <UL> <LI>Fourth, our guest worker programs must assure that American citizens have the first right to access available jobs. There is significant debate about whether American citizens are losing U.S. jobs to workers from other countries. However, this debate can be resolved by assuring that any jobs made available in a guest worker program are first available to U.S. workers. Manageable ways to assure this have already been identified. </LI></UL>It is understandable why many
would want to immigrate to America, which is a land of opportunity and freedom and represents those ideals to many throughout the world. However, in order to maintain the strength of this country, we must uphold our laws. I have been very concerned about the amnesty provisions included in S. 2611 and ultimately could not support the bill, even though there are some good provisions in it. <div>It is a contradiction to try to curb illegal immigration by providing a path to citizenship for millions of people who entered the country illegally. Granting amnesty instead rewards those who broke the law at the expense of those who are attempting to enter our country through legal channels. This will only create incentives for further illegal immigration. </div> <div>A temporary worker program ought to be focused on employment, and not an expedited path to citizenship. Guest workers should be allowed to apply for citizenship under our existing immigration laws; however, they
should be required to get in line with everyone else who has followed the law. I supported an amendment to define the temporary worker visa in the bill as an access to employment in the United States, not permanent residence or citizenship. However, the amendment failed to get the votes necessary to be added to the bill. The bill's guest worker program would allow millions of illegal immigrants to qualify for permanent green cards within four years. Additionally, the Senate approved <A href="http://cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&oid=17&rid=237183&pg=1">Senator Kennedy's amendment</A> that each year would allow up to 200,000 immigrants who cross the border illegally and work just six days a year (including self employment) to qualify for a permanent green card.</div> <div><A href="http://crapo.senate.gov/media/multimedia.cfm"><IMG height=86 src="http://crapo.senate.gov/images/newsletter/audio_video.gif" width=257 align=left
border=0></A>Additionally, the legislation would substantially increase the federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate bill will increase federal spending by $54 billion in the first ten years alone. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation described the bill as a "fiscal catastrophe," and has said the measure would prove to be the largest expansion of government welfare in 35 years. According to Rector, <A href="http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=256030">the bill would increase long-term federal spending by at least $50 billion a year</A>.</div> <div>There were several other amendments that resulted in taxpayer-funded benefits to those who have entered this country illegaly. The Senate unfortunately rejected <A href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060518-114132-2456r.htm">Senator Ensign's amendment</A> that would have prevented Social Security benefits from being awarded to immigrants for time that they worked illegally
in the United States. If the immigration compromise bill before the Senate were enacted into law, an estimated 12 million illegal workers would be able to use their past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits.</div> <div>Provisions in S. 2611 would require newly legalized immigrants to file tax returns for work they performed while in the U.S. illegally. While some would be required to pay back taxes, <A href="http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=256030">many others could qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit</A>, which has a maximum payout of $4,400 per year.</div> <div>The Senate bill <A href="http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/index.asp?f=record&lid=1&yid=1&rid=237188&pg=1">does not reimburse state and local governments for health care and education costs related to the millions of undocumented immigrants</A>. While the underlying bill creates a state impact assistance account for future temporary workers, it is an unfunded
account.</div> <div><A href="http://crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_topic.cfm?code=IMM&&type=false"><IMG height=86 src="http://crapo.senate.gov/images/newsletter/news_releases.gif" width=257 align=left border=0></A>The Senate has debated the immigration bill for the past two weeks. In total, 44 amendments have been offered, with 27 receiving Senate approval. Approximately nine days of debate have been spent on the measure in the last two weeks.</div> <div>Unfortunately, several amendments that would better shape this legislation into something more reasonable for this nation have been defeated throughout this process. I am hopeful that House and Senate conference on the bill will produce a better crafted bill. The bottom line is we could do it better, and we should do it better. This nation deserves more.</div> <div>I will continue to support efforts to reform our nation's immigration system in a way that ensures that American workers and Idaho's
economy are protected and not adversely impacted, while at the same time establishing a rational, sensible guest worker system. Throughout the history of the United States, our immigration laws have been periodically altered and adapted to meet our changing needs and circumstances.</div> <div>Thank you for your time and consideration of these thoughts.</div> <div>Sincerely,</div> <div><IMG height=68 src="http://crapo.senate.gov/images/newsletter/mike_signature.gif" width=139></div> <div>Mike Crapo <BR>U.S. Senator <BR>Idaho</div> <div>P.S. If you are interested in receiving periodic electronic communications like this one, please sign up for my <A href="http://crapo.senate.gov/newsletter/news_add.cfm">electronic newsletter</A>.</div> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com