Speech #1010216636

Basically. I am opposed to H.R. 4300 for the following reasnns: My No. 1 objection to this bill is its provision for conditional permanent resident status to aliens from soceiled adversely affected foreign states. In other words. a new amnesty for illegal aliens who entered the United States prior to January 1. 1990. While I have seen no firm figures. it is estimated that 2 million illegal aliens could receive amnesty. I am strongly opposed to any new amnestieswhether direct or indirect. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted a onetimeonly amnesty for illegal aliens. that. unlike provisions in HR. 4300. was clearly tied to new controls on illegal immigration. Passing H.R. 4300 only signals that the onetime amnesty was a farce. Were saying. "go ahead. break American law. cross our borders and reside here illegally. disregard those who have and continue to patiently wait for their turn to immigrate. You have nothing to lose because every couple of years Congress will come along and provide you with amnesty. legalizing your illegal actions." Is that the message we want to send? We already have a serious illegal immigration problem. Such a signal would make it 10 times worse. Second. by granting the immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents the same immigration privileges as those of U.S. citizens. H.R. 4300 would eliminate an incentive for lawful permanent residents to seek naturalized citizenship. impending the full integration into the United States of certain immigrants. Third. H.R. 4300 drastically increases the numbers of immigrants without compensating in any way the heavy financial impact on State and local governments. California is especially hard hit. Already local schools. hospitals. social agencies. water resources. and housing have been overburdened by illegal Immigration. I have seen reports that California is estimated to receive 36.5 percent of the new. additional immigrants entering via H.R. 4300. With each immigrant adding approximately $2.600 in new responsibilities than in revenue for local and State governments. that means California will have to come up with an estimated $310 million annually extra. Neither the House Judiciary Committee nor its product. H.R. 4300. satisfactorily address this pressing issue. Fourth. H.R. 4300 appears to respond to the demands of every organized special interest group over the interests of the American people and immigration policy In general by expanding the number of visas for leg. immigration from 500.000 to a minimum of 840.000again without considering or trying to accommodate the economic and social impact of increased immigration. Fifth. H.R. 4300 fails to include the estimated 200.000 illegal aliens in overall immigration flow and legal levels despite their significant economic Impact. In other words. H.R. 4300 seems to pretend that there Isnt an illegal immigration problem and that illegal aliens do affect local services or economies. With illegal immigration out of control. we should not be doubling legal immigration without seriously addressing the illegal problem first. Sixth. H.R. 4300 significantly impairs employers from a reasonable use of foreign workers even when the need Is welldocumented and demonstrated.