Does anyone care to figure just what my senator is saying about illegal immigration?

Question

Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciated hearing from you and apologize for the delay in my response.

On June 28, 2007, the Senate failed to obtain the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate on the comprehensive immigration reform bill, S. 1639. That halted any likely future progress on this legislation for the duration of the 110th Congress.

Although S. 1639 was by no means a perfect bill, it was a vast improvement over previous reform measures. The American people demanded that certain provisions be included, and they were. These demands included triggers requiring successful installation of border security measures before other programs come into effect, English language requirements, employee verification systems, and provisions that would force illegal immigrants to leave the country and submit an application before achieving permanent legal residency. In addition, the bill would have required that currently undocumented individuals seeking temporary legal status maintain employment, pass a background check, pay fines and their back taxes, and forego any Social Security benefits tied to payments they made into the system while working illegally. Americans were, and still are, adamantly in support of these policies, as am I.

Despite the inclusion of these popular provisions, the vote in the Senate demonstrated that many Americans do not trust the federal government to enforce these ambitious programs. In the end, that is probably what brought the bill down.

Unfortunately, because of this outcome, no problems have been solved, and the dysfunctional status quo remains. Communities in Idaho, and across the country, will still face the problem of undocumented workers who take advantage of our broken legal immigration system. Idahoans sent me to Congress to solve problems, which is why I voted to limit debate on the bill. Had sixty votes been cast for cloture, the Senate would have voted on several more amendments, including additional measures to strengthen border security, before a final up-or-down vote on passage of S. 1639.

Despite the outcome, I remain open to other proposals to solve the problems of illegal immigration and an outdated, flawed legal immigration system. In particular, I will use my position on the Appropriations Committee to fund strong border enforcement measures, as I have done in the past. I will also continue to search for a solution to the serious labor shortages plaguing the U.S. agricultural community.

My first priority is, and will always be, the hard-working men and women of Idaho and their families. Protecting our homeland security and the safety of our people is the fundamental responsibility of the government, and I will continue to support policies that protect and benefit American citizens, treat immigrants fairly, and preserve our economy, resources and national security.

I kept an online floor journal during the final debate on the bill to let folks know my reasoning behind each vote. You can view the journal at http://craig.senate.gov/journal_immigration.cfm. If you have specific questions about these or any of my other votes on the immigration proposal, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

LARRY E. CRAIG
United States Senator

Answer 1

I think something really needs to be done and not just with the Mexican immigration. Other countries have strict rules when visiting or moving there and we should too. Immigrants work over here and don't pay taxes, yet our tax dollars provide for them SSI, food stamps and other services that keep our legal residents from getting it.

I live in Oklahoma and I as an employer have to check status on all new hires to verify residency. This bill will require that all person receiving aide have to be legal citizens. This will all go into effect Nov.1, 2007. I am glad we are beginning to enforce these standards, if they had been in place maybe our schools wouldn't have trained the pilots that flew the planes into the trade centers and all.

heres the bill:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/HB/HB1804_ENR.RTF

Answer 2

He is quoting the party line and showing that he is either (a) a liar or (b) the not so perfect bill was so complicated and convoluted that even he did not understand it.

"the bill would have required that currently undocumented individuals seeking temporary legal status maintain employment, pass a background check, pay fines and their back taxes, and forego any Social Security benefits tied to payments they made into the system while working illegally."

The back taxes provision was struck because the GAO decided it would be way too complicated to figure out. Besides they knew that the illegals would only claim sufficient income to claim EIC.
SS benefits? Bush already signed an agreement with Mexico to give them back benefits.

"Unfortunately, because of this outcome, no problems have been solved, and the dysfunctional status quo remains. Communities in Idaho, and across the country, will still face the problem of undocumented workers who take advantage of our broken legal immigration system."

Now here he is showing us just how stupid he is (or thinks we are)
Illegals are NOT taking advantage of a broken LEGAL immigration system they are taking advantage of a Government that REFUSES to enforce the law. ENFORCEMENT has NOTHING to do with the granting of amnesty which was what SB1639 was about. So what he is really saying is you didn't give me amnesty so I will not enforce the law.

"I will also continue to search for a solution to the serious labor shortages plaguing the U.S. agricultural community. "

Now here is a good one. The old jobs Americans won't do. Sounds like Dianne Feinstein, Queen of the amnesty proponents. Even Queen Dianne estimated that there are only about 1/2 a million illegal alien farmworkers in the US. If that is the case, what are the other 19.5 million doing?

What is your Senator really saying? Either he has no clue or he thinks you are clueless.

Answer 3

He's saying he voted down the illegal immigration bill for the people of Idaho. It's a politicians way of saying he wants the vote of the immigrants and this is how he can get it. Just put off for tomorrow what should have been done yesterday.

Answer 4

Maybe you could start to read the "draft" law first and don't delegate the reading to others. That would help to understand why the majority of the population is upset with your Chamber and its peculiar members. Try to think what a Senator should do for the people and the Nation and not the other way round.

Answer 5

"I regret to inform you that nothing can be done about illegal immigration since the amnesty bill did not pass. For some reason I can't fathom, the American people don't believe any of our promises and reassurances about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws. Despite the outcome, I will pay lip service to border security and protecting US citizens. My first priority is, and always will be, protecting the businesses that line my pockets. I am committed to always providing them with the cheap labor that they so desperately need."

Answer 6

"If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

TRANSLATION:

I did not support this bill.

I am one of the minority that blocked movement of this bill to a vote on the senate floor..

It will not come up again. Whew, I can breathe a sigh of relief. Now I don't have to actually vote against it.

Now I can campaign against the tax and spend liberals who did nothing on Immigration reform because the people from the Great State of Idaho are too STUPID to figure all of this out; or they're too LAZY to try.

Answer 7

Intended meaning: I as your Senator have done everything you wanted me to do, so you should vote for me again. The opposing party is anti-American and they are always wrong.

True meaning: The US government will not do anything because illegal immigrants are necessary to keep the economy growing; and that is more important to your rich senator than your welfare.

Answer 8

You got a form letter written by one of his aids. The letter is very long in hopes you will just be confused about whether he is for or against illegal immigration. Typical double talk, I would not vote for him again.

Answer 9

Its pretty obvious within his first paragraph he was for the bill because he actually thinks it would have solved problems.
But of course he is going on an on about nothing really as he hedges a bit telling you you are his priority etc...

Answer 10

Ah, here we go again! Blame the Democrats!
But I notice that he did not say how he voted, he just blamed the Democrats!
How like Republicans! They just never change! And isn't that the problem?