Res Judicata: Can an E-Verify Mandate Be Enforced?

January 2nd, 2012 at 1:39 am | 68 Comments |

| Print

Enforcement of the law prohibiting the employment of illegal immigrants, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted in 1986, has been pathetic. When the was first enacted, illegal migration from Mexico initially slowed to a trickle as Mexicans waited to see how seriously the U.S. Government would enforce IRCA.

Yes, IRCA requires all employers to complete a form upon hiring each new employee in which the employer swears he or she has looked at two forms of documentation provided by the perspective employee and that they “appear genuine and relate to the employee.” This does not mean the employer must be a fraud expert, but must make a good faith effort to discern if the document is real and was issued to the person tendering it. The employee must also sign the same form (called an I-9) swearing that he or she is authorized for employment in the U.S. and that the documents tendered are legitimate. Some employers relying on large immigrant workforces, particularly agriculture, did not comply at all.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has since been replaced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made a few high-profile prosecutions of such employers in the late 1980’s, and the result was that that employers do complete the Forms. But DHS has never been serious about really enforcing IRCA against employers who knowingly accept fake documents. Such prosecutions fell 77% in the 1990’s, and the flow of illegal immigrants soared as Mexicans realized we were not serious about keeping them out of our workforce. There were 2 million illegal immigrants when IRCA was enacted. Now we have an estimated 12 million. This is direct result of our policy of non-enforcement. We probably would have been better without IRCA.

Enter E-Verify, an online system that matches the document numbers provided by perspective employees on their I-9 Forms against the Social security and DHS data bases. So if a Social Security number or alien registration number was not issued to the person tendering it, the employer will instantly receive a “Not Authorized” message in his in box. In theory this would be a superb tool to supplement (or really supply) some actual teeth to the current visual inspection system.

E- Verify has been voluntary for several years. Hundreds of thousands of employers, typically large ones, have signed up for it despite the minimal cost it imposes (a little extra time for each hire). DHS does not charge a fee. Studies show E- Verify is now about 99% effective in identifying imposters using fake documents. However, it is not particularly effective in rooting out more sophisticated illegal immigrants who use fake documents bearing real Social Security numbers belonging to real American citizens. Such numbers can be purchased in the black market. But DHS is phasing in a digital photo of legally admitted aliens into the system. So soon, employers will also see the face of legal aliens (taken at time of their inspection and entry). This will help employers identify illegal aliens masquerading a legal. It is not perfect, but we must remember the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is offering a bill to make use of E-Verify mandatory for all employers. Like many bills, this one sounds good in theory. If E-Verify were used throughout the country, and DHS enforced that use, a large majority of illegal immigrants would finally be deprived of employment, the magnet that draws them here. But will the Obama DHS, headed by Janet Napolitano, really enforce the law? The Obama administration is not enforcing IRCA now. Yes, there has been an upturn in deportations (removals) of illegals DHS deems dangerous for other reasons, i.e., other felony convictions unrelated to their illegal immigration.

The recent disclosure of memos from John Morton, in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the part of DHS that actually conducts deportations, shows he is not interested in initiating removal proceedings against ordinary illegal immigrants. This is a de facto amnesty for most illegal immigrants and a clear subversion of IRCA, which was meant to preserve American jobs for Americans and legal aliens. Mr. Morton should be, and is, being called to account for this policy by the House Judiciary Committee.

So enacting mandatory E-Verify would likely be opposed by the President, who let’s recall, favors blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens in the country who have not committed subsequent violent felonies (though working with a fake identification document is a felony). Yet 2012 is an election year, and the President would be under tremendous political pressure to sign a mandatory E-Verify bill into law. It’s a popular idea with almost all constituencies. In 1996 President Clinton was similarly obliged to sign that year’s Republican-passed immigration enforcement bill into law.

I am concerned that mandatory E-Verify will not be enforced by this administration and thereby initiate another tsunami of illegal immigrants from as occurred after the non-enforcement of IRCA. On the other hand, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify law in June. So, if mandatory E-Verify is enacted and not enforced, the states could step into the breach. This is a big if. I don’t see Illinois, New York, or California, the states with the largest illegal alien populations, enacting Arizona-like laws. In fact, the California legislature is considering a law which would prohibit counties or municipalities in that state from enacting such laws.

Hopefully, Mitt Romney, who supports the Smith bill, will make it an issue in the campaign. This would send a signal to Mexicans contemplating an illegal entry, and to all of those foreigners here legally with visas and contemplating overstaying, as big a source of illegal immigration as Mexico, that they will not find employment. Yet, if this is not followed up promptly with real enforcement against employers who do not correctly use E-Verify, the effort will do much more harm than good.

Recent Posts by Howard Foster



68 Comments so far ↓

  • nameless

    “The recent disclosure of memos from John Morton, in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the part of DHS that actually conducts deportations, shows he is not interested in initiating removal proceedings against ordinary illegal immigrants.”

    He is interested in prioritization of removal proceedings against felons. His agency is strongly limited by the number of qualified deportation judges on its payroll. Every removal must, by law, be approved by a judge, and there is roughly one such judge for every 40,000 illegal immigrants in the country (and this is not a typo!) This part of the pipeline is completely outside DHS (judges are part of DOJ), we could hire more of them, except there is no money – DOJ budget is part of the “discretionary, non-defense spending” and, as such, prime target of budget-cutters.

    Back on the subject of making E-Verify mandatory, that will be a waste of everyone’s time. E-Verify is very inefficient, with or without photos. It will be slightly harder for illegals to beat it when photos are added, but they will figure it out. Next time an illegal immigrant tries to buy fake papers on a black market, he’ll just request papers of a citizen who sorta looks like him. Besides, many illegal immigrants have legal relatives in this country. Given a Mexican job seeker and a 5-year-old photo in the DHS database, how many whites can reliably and confidently determine whether the photo is of the applicant or of his second cousin?

    • USAmerican100

      If the DOJ changed it’s rules to eliminate endless appeals, the current number of judges could deport over 1 million illegals a year. And what do you think would happen if we stepped up prosecution of felony ID theft/fraud, including hefty fines to offset the prosecution costs?

      • nameless

        To deport 1 million illegals a year at the present staffing levels, each judge would have to deport one person every 30 minutes, assuming that he is on the bench 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Since we’re talking about life and death issues, (ok, livelihood and death issues), and any judicial mistakes should be avoided at all costs, I’m not convinced that forcing judges to deport people faster and to minimize appeals is the way to go.

        • USAmerican100

          They are not US citizens, the US government is not responsible for their life or death, the US government is only for the life and deaths of Americans, 3000 a year who are killed by illegal aliens.

        • nameless

          Even if this were true (which it isn’t), it’s up to the courts to prove that they are not US citizens! (Or legal immigrants – for whom the US government is certainly responsible. For each illegal alien in this country, there are three or four first-generation legal immigrants who look a lot like him.) Dropping appeals and accelerating the process is a sure way to guarantee that some bona fide US citizens will end up deported with all the rest.

  • armstp

    Why is illegal immigration even a problem? It seems like the illegal work force is an economic positive for the country.

    They pay their taxes, they take very little out of the government system, they provide cheap labor for many industries that need it, studies have shown that over the long-term they help to create more jobs than they take from U.S. citizens, they have helped to revitalize many parts of the country that were dying an economic death, etc.

    We should be glad to have them and in fact we should allow more into the country.

    • bartlebee

      Please armstp, enough of your La Raza propaganda. Next you’ll be telling us that illegal aliens make the sun shine, the flowers bloom, and the birds sing.

    • think4yourself

      Armstp, it’s hard to find good evidence as to the economic benefits and costs of illegal immigrants.

      Yes, when they work, Social Security & medicare is taken out of their checks, that they won’t be the beneficiaries of (so it’s taxation with no benefit) and yes, they do work that US workers won’t at pay that US workers won’t. Without them, our food costs would skyrocket, family farms would close and we would import more produce from other countries.

      However, because incidence of non-health coverage is rampant with this group, they are a huge strain on our emergency room system, which is the most inefficient and expensive way to treat people. Illegal immigrant children our in our school systems (cost is about $7,500 per child per year), and since most school systems are supported by versions of property tax and most illegal immigrants are not homeowners, they are getting education paid by others.

      Lastly, I don’t see anyone who is suggesting we should have open immigration.

      • mkspence

        I haven’t seen any estimates that food costs would skyrocket. In fact, I have read that only 3-percent of the 12-million+ illegals in the country work in agriculture.

  • Primrose

    And what happens when E-Verify falsely determines that a citizen is not a citizen? My husband, a mild-mannered young businessman was on the no fly list for at least a year because his ridiculously common name was shared by someone they didn’t like. He would have to patiently explain that look we don’t even have the same middle name to get, show them that he couldn’t be the same person etc.

    But with jobs there is no next plane. Once a mark has been against you, an employer goes next. It is unlikely that you would even be told why you lost the job. You could spend decades wondering why you never got a job, when it was simply a switch up in the records, perhaps even the victim of identity theft.

    I thought Republicans believed in the phrase “right to work”. Now Americans have to provide papers to get a job?

    • USAmerican100

      E-verify doesn’t work that way. Employers cannot use it until after they have hired you. Then if you don’t pass you get a few weeks to straighten it out. Go read the E-verify details at DHS.

  • bamboozer

    Can it work? Sure! But as we all know by now It’s Not The Law, It’s The Enforcement. Enforcement will remain lax as farmers, construction companies, retaurants and all the rest complain and then contribute to “our” politicians who, like usual, will make sure nothing gets doene. Since fining or jailing the employers of the illegals seems to be forbidden in this country the only avenue for progress lies in shaming ht epoliticians, not easy as they have several thousand lies on hand at any given moment.

    • armstp

      You cannot blame illegals for coming to this country. It is BS that we penalize them, as they are essentially invited here by those offering them jobs. If illegal immigration really is a problem (which it is not, but rather an economic plus to the country), then we should only be pentalizing those companies or employers who hire them. We should really be penalizing all those 100,000s of farmers and small businesses that hire them. Do you think the Republican Party/conservatives really want to do that? And do you think eliminating these cheap and very flexible workforce is a good thing for the country? Who will cut all those 1%ers lawns, pick their fruit, butcher their livestock and build all those McMansions?

  • Graychin

    “So enacting mandatory E-Verify would likely be opposed by the President, who let’s recall, favors blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens in the country who have not committed subsequent violent felonies…”

    Start with a thoughtful premise, finish with a mendacious straw man. Welcome to the new 2012 FrumForum – same as the old 2011 FrumForum.

    You want to have the E-Verify debate in an election year? I say: Bring. It. On.

    The most significant opponents of E-Verify and other enforcement against employers have always been the so-called “job creators” in the Chamber of Commerce, whose political mantra is not Country First, but Cheap Labor First (and a tax cut second). Republican candidates are going to run from mandatory E-Verify like scared rabbits, lest they offend the teat to which they are attached. Their response will be to claim that E-Verify isn’t good enough, then do nothing – making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    Voting Hispanics are present in America legally – by definition. And up there in the clouds, Mr. Foster can’t or won’t grasp the fact that Hispanics don’t object to fair and humane enforcement of the law so much as they object to laws (promoted by Republicans – always) against Living While Brown – best exemplified by what happened in Arizona and Alabama. That, plus silly Republican symbolic-but-ineffective English Only laws.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    • Graychin

      Late edit: Yesterday Mitt Romney promised to veto the DREAM Act – in the event that Congress passes it.

      http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/romney_vows_to_kill_dream_act034461.php

      “Keep in mind, we’re talking about legislation that was written in large part by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dick Lugar (R-IN) — neither of whom are especially moderate — and it used to enjoy the enthusiastic backing of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

      I mention this context because it suggests the DREAM Act is arguably the least controversial, bipartisan immigration reform measure. The proposal is just humane.

      But Romney doesn’t care. He’s running for the Republican presidential nomination, for Pete’s sake.”

    • armstp

      Mr. Foster continues with his tradition of just getting his facts wrong or he just convinently igores the facts.

      who have not committed subsequent violent felonies…

      Actually, the vaste majority of the illegals who have been swept up in Obama’s unprecedent detain and deport program are caught for relatively simple infractions like not wearing a seat belt or not signaling when making a turn in their car. Very few of the 400,000 deportations in the last year were violent felons.

      Illegal immigration: Are Obama deportations truly aimed at ‘criminals’?

      US says it deported a record 216,000 ‘criminal aliens’ in fiscal 2011, but immigration court statistics show a drop in criminal deportation proceedings from the Bush years. How do those square?

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1201/Illegal-immigration-Are-Obama-deportations-truly-aimed-at-criminals

      • USAmerican100

        Give your income and assets to an illegal alien family as so many Americans have been forced to do, see if you still feel the same way.

        • Graychin

          Huh? Are you referring to American Indians?

          If so – good point.

        • think4yourself

          +1 !!!

        • USAmerican100

          The American Indians where I live receive $10,000 a month each from Indian Gaming, so no I wasn’t talking about them, I was talking about all other unemployed and broke US citizens, American Indians who don’t receive gaming proceeds like myself included.

      • mkspence

        Secure Communities and 287g both emphasize the deportation of criminal aliens.

        There is nothing in the language of those programs that prevents ICE from deporting illegal aliens in general.

  • PracticalGirl

    A take-off of sorts from Graychin’s post…New year, same as the old year.

    Foster shows the US’ poor resolve with enforcement of existing Federal laws, doing a good job of demonstrating a blanket, systemic and non-partisan US refusal to effectively enforce illegal immigration laws. And then this…

    I am concerned that mandatory E-Verify will not be enforced by this administration and thereby initiate another tsunami of illegal immigrants from as occurred after the non-enforcement of IRCA

    From Foster’s own historical back track, the most logical initial outcome of E-Verify would be the stemming of illegal immigration as potential illegals and would-be law breaking US companies all sit on the fence, waiting to see how the law is enforced. From his own logic, illegal immigration would initially go down under President Obama, as it has BTW for the past few years in most states.

    So what’s the real worry? Is it that the big, bad Democrat in the White House won’t enforce E-Verify OR is Foster really afraid that Saint Mitt might get into the White House and be left to enforce a law that pits him against big business donors and the Chamber of Commerce?

  • Houndentenor

    So we finally have a system that allows us to identify 99% of illegal workers and people on the right are against this? It’s just further evidence that Republicans have no intention of doing anything about illegal immigration. Big business loves the cheap labor and the ability to ignore workplace safety regulations. This is probably as good a system as we are going to get and they don’t want it. Of course they don’t. They WANT illegal immigration. They just want them to STAY illegal so they can be exploited and abused.

  • sweatyb

    It’s never been clear to me why the current stance against illegal immigration is insufficiently draconian. Nor is it clear why the erstwhile champions of freedom and a free society blindly support creating more bureaucracy around gainful employment.

    Aren’t the people with the Black Helicopters the same people running e-Verify?

    Where are all the libertarians to decry this federal meddling in the private market?

    • Reflection Ephemeral

      Tea/Republican Party allegiance is a product of resentment of outsiders. (That explains why, as Graychin pointed out above, Foster felt the need to lie about the president’s position on illegal immigration). That’s why they supported the Bush administration to the hilt– because the torture, indefinite detentions, and invasions were targeting Them, not Us. Libertarianism has nothing to do with the emotional morass that is membership in the Republican Party.

  • LaLupa

    Illegal immigration is driven by the economy. Currently, illegal immigration has stopped because the econony is down. Once the economy picks up, illegal immigration will return unless we reform our immigration system. Illegal immigration is not due to failure to enforce laws. It is not a law enforcement problem. If tomorrow we pass a law making breathing illegal and people continue to breathe, is Mr. Foster going to say that we have a law enforcement problem?

    I have said this many times. I am so disappointed that Frum Forum – that supposedly was established to modernize the GOP – has decided to appeal to good old fashion nativism. Immigrants (legal and illegal) create economic opportunity for all. The idea that immigrants steal American jobs ignores the data that clearly shows that immigrants create jobs for Americans:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/business/economy/31view.html

    A Westat showed that E-Verify has a 50% failure rate in deteting stolen or borrowed Social Security numbers. Yet individuals like Mr. Foster babble on about E-Verify as an effective tool. Why not spend time proposing workable solutions? Why not spend the time in moving the GOP away from the foolish FAIR approach to illegal immigration?

    P.S. Lamar Smith is an idiot.

    • Graychin

      “I have said this many times. I am so disappointed that Frum Forum – that supposedly was established to modernize the GOP – has decided to appeal to good old fashion nativism.”

      Actually, I think it’s more accurate to say that Frum Forum is established in an attempt to drag the “GOP” back to its William Buckley / Country Club / Chamber of Commerce roots, abetted by the mass movement of Southern whites and their nativist (i.e. racist) soulmates away from the Democratic Party. For as long as Mr. Frum has been sentient, the “GOP” has appealed to good old-fashioned nativism/racism. It’s in the very DNA of post-1964 Republican politics, including the halcyon days of the Reagan Administration. (Reagan may not have invented the “welfare queen,” but he used her plenty as a dog whistle.)

      No, “modernization” has nothing at all to do with the agenda here. Eric Cantor is the very model of the “modern” Republican.

      • bartlebee

        Curiously, the largest number of illegal aliens come from one of the most nativist and most racist countries in the world, Mexico.

        • Graychin

          I get really annoyed with the assertion that victims of racism are the real racists.

        • USAmerican100

          When did having a country with immigration laws and borders enforced for the benefit of it’s citizens become racist? If that’s the case, 99% of the world’s population are racists.

        • mkspence

          I can’t link you to them right away, but there has been a lot of research done by non-profit groups on the tolerance of Latin Americans who live in this country. A broad spectrum of measures were taken, including anti-semitism, misogyny, and just plain racism. Latinos ranked at or at the bottom in all categories, with non-native Latinos lagging the pack.

    • USAmerican100

      Give your assets and income to an illegal alien, see if you still feel the same way. If you are an illegal alien, give them to a newly arrived illegal.

  • Can an E-Verify Mandate Be Enforced? – FrumForum | Politics News Report

    [...] Can an E-Verify Mandate Be Enforced?FrumForumEnforcement of the law prohibiting the employment of illegal immigrants, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted in 1986, has been pathetic. When the was first enacted, illegal migration from Mexico initially slowed to a trickle as …Immigration issue ignites passionThe News-PressAnn Coulter: Only 1 candidate is right on important issuesSt. Augustine RecordE-Verify portion of Georgia's immigration law takes effectWXIA-TVNational Review Online (blog) -Springfield News-Leaderall 12 news articles » [...]

  • valkayec

    The only way really to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is to fix the Mexican economy and political system. How about a little joint US-Mexico discussion on fixing Mexico – and our subsidy structure – to reduce the desire to illegally cross the border?

    • sweatyb

      legalizing drugs and legitimizing the drug trade would go a long way in that regard

      • mkspence

        Can you give me an example of a Western country that legalized marijuana, cocaine, meth, and heroin?

        Please don’t name Portugal; they decriminalized, not legalized.

  • busboy33

    @Res Judicata:

    Can you provide a link to the “studies show E-Verify is 99% effective” claim? The only thing I can find is this report from the Center for Immigration Studies (which, depending on your opinion may or may not have bias issues) that makes the claim without providing a factual backing.

    Also, while I respect your blanket claim that all The Illegalz were in cahoots with their falsification procedures, that might also be nice to cite a source for. What were the pre-E-Verify numbers? If 95% of pre-E-Verify employment applications were accurate as to work status, then the system detecting with 95% accuracy would not actually be providing any greater protections.

    I did find this though:

    “USCIS released, on January 28, 2010, a recent report conducted by an outside research firm, Westat, on the accuracy of E-Verify with respect to identifying illegal workers, among other classes of workers run through the E-Verify system. The E-Verify evaluation is part of an ongoing effort to evaluate E-Verify’s accuracy.

    The report focused on many aspects of E-Verify, but the main number which has drawn attention recently is the fact that according to the Westat report, 54% of the unauthorized workers run through E-Verify result in an authorization to work. Westat and USCIS attribute this high number to identify fraud – unauthorized workers who use and submit documents of a person who is authorized to work. However, this high percentage of inaccurate E-Verify authorization has stirred some political and emotional responses. See Wall Street Journal and Forbes articles.

    Overall, Westat found that an estimated 96 percent of all E-Verify initial responses were consistent with the person’s work authorization status: 93.1 percent of all E-Verify cases involved authorized workers who were initially found to be authorized; 2.9 percent of all E-Verify cases involved unauthorized workers who received final non-confirmations.
    4.1 percent of the initial responses were inconsistent with employment eligibility status: 0.7 percent of all E-Verify cases involved authorized workers who were not initially found to be authorized to work; 3.3 percent of all E-Verify cases involved unauthorized workers who were found to be employment authorized.

    Although the numbers, overall, are positive, the main concern and recent political storm came after breaking down this number relating to the 3.3 percent of all E-Verify cases involving unauthorized workers who were found to be eligible to work. Put in another way, out of the 6.2 percent of all E-Verify cases in which the workers were not authorized to work, the system failed to discover the unauthorized worker and permitted work 54 percent of the time.”
    http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2010/02/25/report-highlights-e-verify-accuracy-problems/

    Lets apply those number s to 3 million job applicants (the number from the CIS article for FY2007). Of 3,000,000 applicants, 2,880,000 cleared like they were supposed to. Unfortunately, there’s no mention of what those percentages would be without E-Verify. So whether that’s good/bad/average is unknown. That leaves 112,000 people applying for employment that got bad results from E-Verify. As the audit shows, more illegals got thru the system than got caught.

    21,000 legal workers got bounced from jobs.
    99,000 illegal workers got thru.
    87,000 illegal workers got bounced.

    Again, without a “before” report we have no way of determining whether these numbers are an improvement or not, but just taking them at face value 1 American worker got denied a job for every 5 illegals that got thru, and more illegals got thru than didn’t.

    Not sure I’d call that a staggering success.

    • sweatyb

      +1 e-Verify is a joke

    • armstp

      Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a anti-immigrant nativist propaganda outfit. Their “studies” have continually been prove over and over again to be false. They manipulate the data to fit their pre-determined conclusions.

      • USAmerican100

        How about showing where one CIS study fudged the numbers. You cannot.

        • busboy33

          Here’s the link for the original article (I forgot to include it):

          http://www.cis.org/Everify

          Like I said, its hard to verify their numbers when they don’t provide the source data. Some of their data is footnoted, some isn’t. Their claim that E-Verify is 99% effective isn’t linked to any data or source. I can claim that I’m 11 ft. tall, and you can’t call my claim false since you have no way to refute the unsupported allegation. Doesn’t make it accurate.

          Not taking sides in “CIS is wonderfully bipartisan/biased”, but why would you only source half of your data? If nothing else, for a “think tank” it seems pretty sloppy.

        • USAmerican100

          You are such a clown, you just had to look at the next line to see the footnote:
          4 USCIS E-Verify statistics from first half 2007, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176… , June 11, 2008.

    • nameless

      His claim is misleading. Mandating E-Verify because it is “99% effective at identifying imposters using fake documents” is like mandating all businesses to use bank note scanners which are 99% effective at catching teenagers trying to make $20 notes using color copiers.

      It is easy for E-Verify to determine if the job seeker supplies a valid SSN. It is much harder to check if the applicant is really who he says he is.

      • busboy33

        @USAmerican100:

        That link doesn’t say that the overall accuracy of the E-Verify program is 99%. Am I still a clown?Gosh, I hope not. I crave your approval.

    • mkspence

      How do you define success?

  • jskdn

    “Can an E-Verify Mandate Be Enforced” is the wrong question. The real and more fundamental question is can we get a government that actually cares about controlling illegal immigration. The current one under President Obama certainly doesn’t, quite the opposite. Neither did the two previous administrations. Will the citizens of this country be given a real choice regarding illegal immigration in the upcoming election? Mitt Romney is saying the right things about removing the incentives for being in the country illegally but some question his sincerity. A quarter of century after IRCA’s promises have been roundly proven to be lies, people should rightly be skeptical about anything any politician says about controlling illegal immigration. Unfortunately those citizens that do care about controlling illegal immigration have almost no one that represents them in the news media, so the debates, or rather non-debate, about the issue gets filtered through the illegal immigrant-advocating people that work in the news media.

    As far as employment, there are currently millions of illegal immigrants working on the books under made up identities that are very highly correlated with the Social Security Administration’s earnings suspense file. This information that is in possession of the government points to the specific likely employment of illegal immigrants enabled by the invitation to fraud the the I-9 verification system represents. The Bush administration was forced to propose a rule that would have required that employers of those whose data didn’t match that of the SSA to correct it if they wanted to maintain a “safe harbor” from the “knowingly” requirement for prosecution. It would have put an end to the ongoing massive, on-the-books employment of illlegal immigrants and well as assuring legal workers that they got credited properly for their Social Security taxes. Unfortunately that rule was killed by the Obama administration when it came into office.

    • sweatyb

      OK, imaging your scenario to be accurate, what would be the benefit to the US of destroying these businesses and laying off these illegal immigrants?

      Perhaps the reason no one actually does anything about illegal workers is that no one can describe a concrete benefit that would come from more draconian and expensive means of denying immigrants the right to work and pay taxes in America.

      As it stands it seems like the Federal gov’t interfering with the hiring practices of private industry is antithetical to the current Republican platform. It also seems counterproductive from a macro-economic standpoint.

      • jskdn

        The voters of this country have consistently indicated that they are for limiting immigration and, coherently, are opposed to illegal immigration. Realizing that is only possible with the effective enforcement of immigration laws and removal of the incentives that currently exist for people in the country illegally.

        No business has the right to operate with illegal immigrant labor nor to disadvantage legal worker’s labor market prospects through the illegal employment of illegal immigrants. The same goes for disadvantaging their law-abiding business competitors by violating the law.

        • armstp

          Voters are morons. They are pushed anti-immigration BS. It is just a Republican wedge issue.

          Illegal immigrants are a net economic positive for this country.

          If someone actually explained the real facts about illegal immigration, I suspect a lot of voter sentiment would change.

        • jskdn

          And the completely pro-illegal immigration news media hasn’t explained the “facts” to them well enough? What a load of…

        • bartlebee

          armstp, voters didn’t pass anti-immigration bills. They passed anti-ILLEGAL immigration bills. There’s a big difference between the two.

      • USAmerican100

        The benefit would be law abiding business would prosper and profit, as would American workers.

        I suppose you prefer we only have business that break as many laws as possible, and 50 million unemployed Americans.

      • mkspence

        Alabama’s unemployment rate has dropped about 1 full percentage point since the enactment of their immigration law 2 months ago. It appears that at least part of this drop is due to jobs that have opened up since illegals departed the state.

        Those people who were unemployed, many of whom were collecting unemployment and other benefits are now employed and are contributing taxpayers.

  • Brittanicus

    All the Republicans who are speaking out on the core issues have approached the alarming problem of illegal immigration in different ways. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich has already presented himself as a passive politician and caused public uproar. We already have government policies with court enacted laws forcing the 50 states to extend public assistance programs, opening them up to 20 million plus illegal alien populace within our country. These persons have slipped past border agents or jetted here from other nation and then we are forced to support them? Gingrich, as a potential President paralyzed a large proportion of his audiences prior to the Iowa caucus, stating he would even entertain some path to legitimacy, but devoid of citizenship. This is certainly not agreeable with the millions in the TEA PARTY member, as this would just pilot to an even larger avalanche of poor people from other countries. Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann jumped, almost instantly on Gingrich plan as “amnesty” which it most certainly is, as it just adds up to pardoning people who criminally stole in this country, without permission.

    That is what immigration laws are for and must be observed. Anybody who thinks that a poorly secured border is not going to lure, as a temptation in running the enforcement gauntlet needs to see a shrink? Each year “The Pew Research Center” estimates 500.000 untracked people arrive here either by plane or slip past the open areas, not covered by the border fence. How can anybody say that theses impoverished people are not going to take advantage of Gingrich formula? After Reagan’s 1986 amnesty the numbers climbed dramatically, because of rampant fraud and a disinterested administrations that should have prosecute business who hired foreigners. George Bush passed the 2006 Secure Fence Act, but as of today, the money was never appropriated. Consider these facts; If Congress was unwavering in halting illegal immigration, they would have passed laws to make it a—FELONY. Additionally if Congress had the desire to eventually close the border tight, the 2006 secure fence would have already been completed, as two fences parallel to each other and decked with concertina razor wire? Those two enforcement laws, would also kept the criminals out and allowed the US border Patrol to rove in between the fences rapidly, to apprehend foreign nationals? New tea Party leaders will ensure no amnesties, no Sanctuary cities or Dream Acts. Governors, Judges, chief of police or lower official will be prosecuted for any misconduct of the 1986 IRCA laws, together with loss of federal funding.

    The current questionable push by the Liberal press is illegal aliens do pay taxes. Yes many do, but they are using either a stolen Social Security numbers, or an IRS number known as an ITIN number. A substantial motivation is they have no choice, if they want to get on a payroll job? Then according to the ‘Heritage Foundation’ the amount of $113 Billion dollars goes to subsidize illegal aliens from taxpayers and every year that amount is rising. As released by the IRS, illegal immigrants are returned 4.5 Billion in child/parent tax credits. Little known is that foreign invaders send out of the country annually to foreign banks, between 40-46 billion dollars. Yes! They do pay taxes, but it hardly reduces the money extorted from federal and state taxpayers for children of illegal aliens. Money going to educate, the massive health care deficit and an overpopulated prison system filled with drug dealers, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and a growing percentage of hit and run drunken drivers; those that are caught.

    We have a new sordid problem that is rising from the gutter. That Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption has revealed its 2011 list of Washington’s “Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The members of the Obama Administration on the list, in alphabetical order, include: Attorney General Eric Holder; read about Eric Holder’s connection with ACORN, The voter fraud organization and the Gun running scandal—’Fast and furious.” President Barack Obama questionable association with ACORN, AHCOA (Affordable Housing Centers of America), the renamed ACORN Housing organization which has a long history of corrupt activity and other illicit association, costing billions of taxpayer dollars. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: While Attorney General Eric Holder was busy suing states fighting to shelter themselves from uncontrolled illegal immigration in 2011, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has overseen a campaign to bypass Congress and provide amnesty to millions of illegal alien invaders, all in an evident attempt to acquire more votes for Obama’s reelection. Make the time to read the facts of governmental corruption by typing in Google—JUDICIAL WATCH. Just remember this information will be concealed by the Democrats, as they have proved over and over again, that they are not disinclined to manipulating voter registrations—even to letting non-citizens vote.

    E-Verify “the Legal Workforce Act” at the very least, it is a step in the right direction to obstruct illegal labor from taking American jobs. Even if E-Verify has some flaws and some illegal aliens can obtain employment, but it won’t last very long before new upgraded version of E-Verify will be able to detect criminal alien workers. ICE has already gained the implementation of Mississippi’s Drivers Licensing Bureau, so as citizens WE SHOULD DEMAND THAT EVERY STATE VEHICLE DEPARTMENT GIVE ICE THE DIRECTIVE TO ACCESS THEIR PHOTO ID DATABASES, TO CROSS REFERENCE WITH ALL HIRED WORKERS BEING CONFIRMED USING E-VERIFY. Those hired illegally will be caught eventually when the irregularities are corrected and ICE auditors return to a previous company.

    It’s better to have something as a deterrent, than to have nothing at all. What requires further action is a bill sponsored by Steve King’s (R-IA) Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (H.R.140) would amend the law so the unborn babies of illegal aliens smuggled calculatedly through borders or by international flight are ineligible for citizenship. The cost to hospitals and an array of welfare payments and entitlements is the most costly for US taxpayers totaling billions of more dollars. This is another demand, you should make of the politicians who represent your state. This is the time before the outcome of the 2012 election to pass the above mentioned laws, as it is critical to the wellbeing of every American worker. You can adjoin the TEA PARTY and demand from both Senators and House Representatives the passage of these laws, by calling the Washington phone center at 202-224-3121

    In conclusion the Tea Party doesn’t discriminate against any nationality or race, as this is an offensive plan by the Democrats to demoralize the alternative party who are strictly against illegal immigration—LEGAL IMMIGRATION. The TEA PARTY openly welcomes those who patiently legally wait their turn, in becoming part of the opportunity that is America. Those who coveted their freedom better be aware that under the Obama regime, the dark shadows within his administration have slowly destabilized the foundation of the US Constitution and its purpose.

    NO COPYRIGHT, EVER! DISTRIBUTE FREELY TO EVERY OVERTAXED AMERICAN

    • armstp

      More cut and paste Tea Party propaganda and BS from this moron. I have concluded that the more one harps about illegal immigration the more they are a racist. Ultimately, when you debate these morons and they can come up with no actual proveable reasons why it makes sense to worry about illegal immigration, it ultimately in the end always just comes down to the fact they don’t like brown people in their country. If they were all from Ireland no one would care.

      • bartlebee

        armstp, you sure are doing a lot of harping in support of illegal immigration. I have concluded that the more one harps in support of illegal immigration, the more they are a racist.

  • derWaldo

    We could enforce it but why would we? As a society we underwrite the hidden costs of cheap food with crop subsidies and cheap labor with social welfare programs. We use similar strategies for cheap oil/energy, etc. So whats the big deal? To see the downside of enforcing E-Verify, witness Arizona where the state has deported (according to MCSO) something like a quarter million undocumented workers. Arizona will be the last state to emerge from the recession, if ever, and with housing for a quarter million people empty, the real estate market will never recover there.

    • USAmerican100

      Arizona has not deported a single illegal alien, what they do is hand them over to ICE for deportation.

      Also the economy, unemployment, and housing market in Arizona is much better than in neighboring illegal infested Nevada and California, mainly because businesses are leaving those over regulated and taxed states for Arizona.

  • small skirmishes won but times still tough for the undocumented - Jorn | Neera Bahl & Associaltes, LLC

    [...] law expands in 2012WFXL FOX 31E-Verify portion of Georgia's immigration law takes effectWXIA-TVCan an E-Verify Mandate Be Enforced?FrumForumNational Review Online (blog) -The News-Press -St. Augustine Recordall 15 news [...]

  • think4yourself

    Interesting reading the posters.

    Howard is right in that IRCA has not worked. I disagree with his characterization about John Morton and policies of this administration designed to subvert IRCA. While the administration is trying to straddle the fence on illegal immigration, the fact is that with scarce resources, pursuing illegal immigrants who are not engaged in violent felonies or drug related activities takes a lower level of importance.

    There is more hypocracy on this issue on both sides that almost any subject I can think of. Those in support of illegal immigrants or unrestricted immigration, call it all “immigrants” and don’t destinguish between those in the country legally versus those that are not. Anti- illegal immigrant folks trample of the rights of people of color in thinly disguised racist attacks.

    This is an issue for several reasons. One, as a country that purports to be a nation of laws, we have 12 million people in this country and more who wish to come here in violation of laws on the books. 25 years ago, we tried to fix that, but the problem is worse today. Illegal immigrants bring both benefits and costs and both of those are widely disputed.

    Solutions are complex, expensive and no guarantee of success. It does not seem feasible to deport 12 million people and no one really knows what those results would be, but the cure could be worse than the problem. Another version of amnesty is not politically possible and just as likely not to work as the previous one.

    Because I believe in a rule of law, I’m okay with trying a version of E-Verify. Yes, I know that it’s likely the costs of many things I purchase will go up if the program is successful. I’m also okay with an expanded guest worker program to help mitigate that.

    In 25 years, the GOP will look back and determine that immigration in 2012 – 2015 made them a permanent majority party, unless they decide to quit cowering to the racist elements in the party and work with moderate Dems to craft a workable immigration strategy.

    • USAmerican100

      Why do you think we should have a permanent one party system, just like Red China now has?

    • bartlebee

      think4yourself wrote:
      “Anti-illegal immigrant folks trample of the rights of people of color in thinly disguised racist attacks.”

      What a bunch of nonsense. Illegal aliens don’t have the right to be in this country. Deporting illegal aliens isn’t trampling on anybody’s rights. And why didn’t you comment on the thinly disguised racist attacks coming from the pro-illegal immigration folks including groups like National Council of La Raza?

      And what is this “people of color” silliness? Didn’t you know that everybody has color?

      • USAmerican100

        Good points, but I don’t think La Raza’s racism is “thinly disguised”, it’s up front for everyone to see, starting with them being organized and named to implement the racial supremacy formula outlined in their guide book La Raza Cosmica, “The Cosmic Race”.

  • bose

    Ecstatic adoration to constructive criticism

    http://www.sampleforms.org/category/verification-forms