Congressional District 2

Oregon General Election – November 8, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives Candidates – Congressional District 2
There are only two candidates, one Republican/Independent and one Democrat.
1.  The Republican candidate is incumbent Representative Greg Walden, of Hood River, who seeks reelection. He is also the write-in candidate of the Independent Party. Walden has served in Congress continuously since 1999.  NumbersUSA grades him F for recent years 2013-2016.  In earlier years, he was more supportive of immigration controls, so his all-career grade is B- . His campaign website is at:  It includes an Issues section, but no mention of immigration was found.
NumbersUSA’s website contains a complete record of Walden‘s votes on immigration issues from 1999 to date.  He has a mixed history on immigration issues.  Here are some of his recent votes – fuller information is on the NumbersUSA website. 
In 2016 he voted:
YES to King amendment to FY2017 defense spending till to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
YES to Gosar amendment to FY17 defense spending bill to block amnesty for DACA recipients.
In 2015 he voted:
YES to the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase foreign guest workers. 
YES to granting the President authority to expand immigration levels without Congress' consent via Trade Promotion Authority. 
YES for the FY2016 Omnibus Spending bill to increase refugee resettlement.  
YES to funding Executive Amnesties by opposing clean DHS Appropriations bill, H.R. 240.  
YES to the Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's DACA amnesty.  
YES to Aderholt Amendment to H.R. 240 to defund Pres. Obama's Nov. 2014 amnesty..
YES to Brooks amendment to remove military amnesty from National Defense Authorization Act. 
2.  The Democratic Party candidate is James A. Crary, of Ashland.  Now retired, he formerly worked for British Petroleum and for the Legal Department of Anchorage, Alaska.  He is a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University in Business Administration, and the University of San Diego where he received a doctoral degree in law.  
Website: In the Issues section of his website, there is the following statement on immigration, which makes clear in the first paragraph that he supports amnesty for illegal aliens.  He also supports the use of E-Verify and discusses that in some detail.
Immigration Reform -- I know that people who came here illegally technically broke the law. But I also know that the reason they came here are the same reasons my ancestors left their homes in Germany, Ireland and Scotland and came to the United States. They came so that they and their children could have a better life. That is hard to fault. If an illegal immigrant has committed a felony or multiple misdemeanors since coming to the U.S. that person should be deported. However, if an illegal immigrant has worked hard and not broken the law then I would allow that person to come out of the shadows, pay a fine and be given a 7 year path to citizenship. 
“As far as stopping this problem from reoccurring I think we either need to build a wall or have a highly functional, easy to use, mandatory E-Verify system (E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States); and my preference is the latter.
“There are strong economic incentives, on both sides of the border, for illegal immigrant workers.  With so much poverty and lower paying jobs in Latin America the U.S. is going to be an economic magnet for people who want to have a better life.  U.S. employers want workers who will do jobs that most Americans shun (and, unfortunately, some employers want to take advantage of illegal immigrants’ illegal status to pay them lower wages and avoid workplace health and safety rules).  With all that said we need a system to accommodate the need in this country for legal seasonal workers while at the same time helping people living in Latin America better their economic situation.  To me, the answer is a seasonal worker program (SWP).
“My vision of a SWP is that workers could get work permits of up to eight months, and employers could request to have specific workers return to work for them in subsequent years.  Workers in the SWP would have a standard employment contract that has been negotiated between the source countries, employers and the U.S. government.  Workers would be:
1. Covered by U.S. workplace safety rules;
2. Provided basic health insurance;
3. Paid prevailing wages for the type of work being done;
4. Subject to an income tax payroll deduction (but not Social Security or unemployment insurance); and
5. Provided safe and habitable housing
“Extended health coverage would paid for by the source country.
“In the vast majority of inquiries the E-Verify system works as it is supposed to.  I understand that with E-Verify a small number of legal workers might get incorrectly flagged but, if they are truly legal, those problems can be rectified relatively quickly. If there is something suspicious about the worker’s information, E-Verify issues a tentative non-confirmation (TNC). That gives the worker and his employer some time to contest the decision by identifying and correcting errors in the worker’s identification. During this time, the employer is not legally allowed to fire the employee and must keep him or her on the payroll until the worker’s identity problems are fixed.  In those cases where a legal worker gets an erroneous TNC I would say that they should be compensated (e.g. $250 to the employee and $150 to the employer) for their trouble in correcting the error.  Such a payment would help negate the inconvenience to both the legal worker and employer and encourage usage of the E-Verify system.
“The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status and made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly.  To me, a mandatory E-Verify is what is required to, finally, successfully implement those parts of the law.
“If E-Verify were mandated for every new hire, with substantial penalties for employers who do not comply, perhaps no wall would be required at our border with Mexico because the word would soon get out that there was no work for illegal immigrants so there would be no economic incentive to illegally cross the border.
“My focus is to not put a temporary Band-Aid on illegal immigration but to, hopefully, permanently solve the problem.  To do that all employers must only hire legal workers because otherwise as long as poverty and poor economic conditions exist for so many Latin Americans and employment is possible in the U.S., we will have an illegal immigration problem. That is why we need to have a highly functional, easy to use, mandatory E-Verify system.”