IMMIGRATION July 20, 2006 Dear Constituent: No one wants illegal immigration, at least no one who is credible, which is why I have voted for every reasonable measure to end it. I am particularly troubled by amnesty proposals that reward wrongdoing and encourage more of it in the future. In its latest efforts, the House passed a massive immigration bill, HR 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, which purposely did not include any guest-worker provisions. I voted for it and it passed 239 to 182 on December 16th. The bill makes illegal entry a criminal, rather than a civil penalty. It also tightens up immigration controls and includes provisions, like the speedier deportation of illegal immigrants, funding for border fences, tougher penalties for smugglers, and penalties for employers (big and small) who hire illegal immigrants, including subcontractors. The bill did not include any increase to employment visas and had no amnesty provisions. The Senate passed its own immigration reform package that contains temporary guest-worker plan provisions and details on how to treat an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. These issues will force a showdown with the House, which has clearly drawn the line on these issues. When we granted amnesty under Reagan, the program was sold with promises that the flow would be halted by stopping employment of illegals. That failed utterly because we did not have the right mechanisms in place to execute on the promise. Now promises to stop the flow ring hollow. People expect we will repeat the same mistake. No amount of assurances to the contrary will change their opinion. We already shot our credibility the first time round. Fool me once... So I think we must focus on stemming the flow. We've got to show we can (and will) do that. And I believe the only practical way of stopping the flow without incurring extraordinary taxpayer expense is through stepped up enforcement with employers combined with establishing a more forgery resistant (but clear and quick) standard for proving citizenship. After all, we do instant background checks on guns. This challenge is not that different. Toward that end, I recently introduced legislation to increase funding for a program that helps employers determine if job applicants are legal residents of the United States. The President had requested $110 million for the Employee Eligibility Verification program in his FY 2007 budget. Unfortunately, however, the Appropriations Committee cut the President’s request to $90 million. My legislation, which passed the House, overruled the decision of the Appropriations Committee and restored the funding at the President’s requested level. If we did more of this, the flow would slow, then stop and perhaps reverse to a certain extent because it would become too difficult to get or keep a good job for those illegally in America. This means rising unemployment among illegal aliens currently in the US, raising economic, social and humanitarian issues. The labor supply would shrink, significantly in certain industries and locales. Wages for legal workers would rise. Some employers would experience higher costs and lesser profits. Prices would increase for certain products and services. There might be temporary shortages. Illegal aliens and their dependents would become more needy. We must prepare for those eventualities if we take this course. But I see no practical, cost-effective alternative that will stop the flow. And the flow must be stopped no matter what is done to address the status of millions of illegal aliens living in this country. Government must live up to the promise made during our last effort to tackle this issue. Decades late is better than never. The details of how all this will play out are beyond me. Frankly, I don't think anybody really knows. I expect and hope, however, that it will shortly become far more difficult to employ illegal aliens. Thanks for writing. Please let me know if I can help in any other way.
JIM
|
