Replies

Isn't that just like them - - point fingers and scream at Pubblies for something they're doing (voter fraud and disnfranchisement (especially of our military). Guess they figure they can again blame the Pubbies for something and no one will think to look at them as helping commit voter fraud. Of course they don't want IDs for illegals or anyone else - - it will cost them a lot of votes (harder for illegals and dead people to vote and would decrease double voting) and the Pubbies might win.

I'm reposting most of my post from yesterday here as I think it's relevant in regard to IDs as well as some info on illegal immigration.

Ohio - I mentioned on my post last night that I'd search and post something I read wrt existing laws - - got sidetracked last night. Here it is. I'm not an immigration or constitutional attorney and don't play one on TV, but it seems to me part of the problem is the bill passed by the Clintoon admin. While some people say we just need to enforce existing laws, I'm not sure that's totally the answer - -looks like some changes are required in existing laws, too.

As a side note, IMHO the timing of the passing of this bill was suspicious given IIRC Gore's push for motor voter initiatives (I remember reading about cases in CA and/or OR where aliens were getting voter cards).

In reviewing the law included on link that mnehrling posted, I looked at a related law wrt Employment and acceptable forms of ID (274(A). IMHO while some folks are bashing employers (and, in many cases, rightly so) it appears that all they have to do is see a driver's license and/or social security card and they're in compliance with the law. They don't have a responsibility to determine if the forged documents are forged or not (and it would be difficult for them to know). Couple this w the law that nmehrling posted below re discrimination, there are obviously changes needed.

Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a]

(a) Making Employment of Unauthorized Aliens Unlawful.-

(1) In general.-It is unlawful for a person or other entity-
(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment, or

(B)(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b).

(2) Continuing employment.-It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

(3) Defense.-A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

>snip

(B) Documents establishing both employment authorization and identity.-A document described in this subparagraph is an individual's-

(i) United States passport;

(ii) resident alien card, alien registration card, or other document designated by the Attorney General, if the document-

(I) contains a photograph of the individual and such other personal identifying information relating to the individual as the Attorney General finds, by regulation, sufficient for purposes of this subsection,

(II) is evidence of authorization of employment in the United States, and

(III)3/ contains security features to make it resistant to tampering, counterfeiting, and fraudulent use.

(C) Documents evidencing employment authorization.-A document described in this subparagraph is an individual's-

(i) social security account number card (other than such a card which specifies on the face that the issuance of the card does not authorize employment in the United States); or

(ii) other documentation evidencing authorization of employment in the United States which the Attorney General finds, by regulation, to be acceptable for purposes of this section.

(D) Documents establishing identity of individual.-A document described in this subparagraph is an individual's-

(i) driver's license or similar document issued for the purpose of identification by a State, if it contains a photograph of the individual or such other personal identifying information relating to the individual as the Attorney General finds, by regulation, sufficient for purposes of this section; or

(ii) in the case of individuals under 16 years of age or in a State which does not provide for issuance of an identification document (other than a driver's license) referred to in clause (i), documentation of personal identity of such other type as the Attorney General finds, by regulation, provides a reliable means of identification.

>snip
Reference to No National ID Cards:

"c) No Authorization of National Identification Cards.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification cards or the establishment of a national identification card."

http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-8198?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act274ah3

Thanks to mnehrling for the post on this law:

Spiff,
This argument has been going around for a while and has one major flaw- causation.

A Clinton era law (INA 274B) made it illegal for employers to ask an employee if the information they provided is 'valid', instead, as long as the employer has an I9, valid information or not, they cannot be prosecuted because they are not responsible for validating the information on the I9.

Basically, if an employer questions an employee 'if they are legal' or if they are providing false ID, they could be sued for 'unfair employment practices'

Sec. 274B. [8 U.S.C. 1324b] (1996)

(a) Prohibition of Discrimination Based on National Origin or Citizenship Status.-

(1) General rule.-It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3)) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment-

(A) because of such individual's national origin, or

(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual's citizenship status.

http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-8468?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm

Like Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story...
Do you want to know why immigration prosecutions dropped drastically in 1999-2000?

Clinton signed the following laws into place.

(INA § 203(b)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)) - This law allows foreign nationals- even those who entered illegally, to request/obtain green cards as soon as they are 'caught'. What does this mean? It means that if caught and if they haven't committed a felony (remember, entering the country illegally is only a misdemeanor), they can simply say they would like to apply for a 'green card'-
This law was originally intended to help 'highly qualified' foreign nationals who want to get work permits easier, but the loophole is that the alien (legal or illegal) must be given the opportunity to prove they meet the qualification.

No, most illegals don't qualify for this visa waiver, but, by the time this is 'proven' they have fallen off the radar.

Worst of all is the The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). Under this law, deportation can be suspended if the illegal alien can prove that they have been in the US 'for a considerable period of time' and has 'good moral character'. Illegal aliens who fall under this are given the opportunity to apply for whatever work visa or asylum they may work for.

The trend is obvious, but the reason many attribute to it (President Bush) is incorrect. A lot of people are falling into the old statistical fallacy that correlation equals coordination (ie, Bush was elected in 2000 = drop in immigration enforcement). This is a fallacy of both logic and statistics.

Is this an excuse to why something hasn't been done legislatively- No? this is simply trying to clear up the real causation of this statistical drop in enforcement.

442 posted on 05/12/2006 9:23:46 AM PDT by mnehrling (Those who advocate, and act to promote, victory by Democrats are not conservatives!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631050/posts?page=442#442