Posted on 09/19/2011 2:04:14 PM PDT by tedw
With legislation pending both in the U.S. Congress and the Michigan House of Representatives to require employers to use a new federal immigration database, even conservative and Tea Party groups are speaking out against the idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at michiganmessenger.com ...
I, for one, don’t care how easy or hard it is.
I just don’t want Americans to have to go, hat in hand, to a federal bureaucrat for permission to earn their daily bread.
That kind of power is so far beyond anything the founders of this free republic envisioned for government it isn’t funny.
For Pete's sake, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO KNOW THEY'RE ILLEGAL?
Since 1986, employers have been required to obtain ID from prospective employees that proves citizenship. It either hasn't worked or wasn't followed. Using E-Verify is no more burdensome than the system that's already been in place for a quarter century.
If this article is accurate, then there are some tea-partiers in Michigan who've drunk deeply from the Libertarian, no-borders Kool-Aid pitcher.
Why, because you say so?
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."-- Thomas Jefferson
I oppose E-Verify. Have for years. And I'm about as far from a Libertarian or "no-borders" as you can get.
If I was in charge, the southern border would be secured in a month.
We don't lack the ability. Just the political will.
I certainly can't disagree with that statement, but is requiring legal status verification the same as requesting permission to be employed? After all, proper ID has been required for decades.
It sort of worked in the eighties, but forgery has become easier as technology has improved.
It seems to me the choices are: a) Anyone from anywhere works where he wishes. b) We attempt to use a system such as E-Verify. c) We turn the border into an armed, patrolled war zone similar to the Berlin Wall.
The last choice may not bother 99% of Americans, but I think we should respect the lives of the people who actually live there, too.
Do you want law enforcement to check immigration status when they arrest people? There are only 6,000 ICE agents. Unless we can leverage state and local law enforcement and businesses to cooperate in the enforcement of our immigration laws, we will never get a handle on the problem. We need to turn off the job magnet. How do you propose we do it?
The concept behind the E-Verify program is perfectly fine with me. However, all of these added "extras" in the bill are, IMO, the problem.
Do you really want a Biometric Employment Eligibility Verification program to be established as the bill prescribes?
Or is E-Verify as it exists now, with a mandatory use clause added, enough?
I tend to agree with you and tedw. E-verify should be made easily “available” to all companies on a voluntary basis.
On the pro E-verify side, any company caught with an illegal who did not use E-verify should be double fined and any company who use E-verify and hired the illegal anyway should be double-double fined, lose any government contracts and be banded from government contracts for 5 years. I mean ANYONE hiring an illegal!
The ONLY way to get a handle on illegals is through employment. If they can not find a job, darn few will come here or stay here.
Here are the sponsors of the Lamar Smith bill:
COSPONSORS(62), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 7/13/2011
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 6/21/2011
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 6/14/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 6/16/2011
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 7/7/2011
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 7/19/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 7/13/2011
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 6/14/2011
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 6/21/2011
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 7/25/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 6/14/2011
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 6/14/2011
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 7/21/2011
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 6/21/2011
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 7/20/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 6/14/2011
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 7/28/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 6/14/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 6/14/2011
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 7/28/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 7/18/2011
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 7/28/2011
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] - 7/6/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 7/6/2011
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 7/27/2011
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 6/14/2011
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 7/14/2011
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] - 6/16/2011
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 6/14/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/13/2011
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 6/16/2011
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 7/13/2011
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 7/13/2011
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] - 9/12/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 6/21/2011
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 6/14/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 7/25/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 6/14/2011
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 6/21/2011
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 7/13/2011
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] - 6/24/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 7/7/2011
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 7/27/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 7/25/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 7/25/2011
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 6/21/2011
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 9/7/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 7/28/2011
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 6/14/2011
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 6/14/2011
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 7/13/2011
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 7/26/2011
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 7/25/2011
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] - 7/18/2011
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 7/19/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/7/2011
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] - 6/22/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 7/6/2011
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 7/26/2011
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] - 6/22/2011
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] - 7/27/2011
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 7/18/2011
The reason that Steve King and Bachmann are not on the list is because they want changes to the bill to make sure that the states like AZ can continue to enforce the law they way they deem fit. The recent SCOTUS decision supported AZ's mandatory use of E-verify and revocation of business licenses for businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens.
RINO fags, open-borders Libertarians, Paulestinians and fake “Tea Party” groups. Why again is this news?
At 5% and falling, Michele isn’t going to be calling on too much too much longer.
There really is no valid reason to oppose Any time anybody says that, I beware.
There really is no valid reason to oppose Any time anybody says that, I beware.
Re the Biometric Employment Eligibility Verification program: It is a pilot program to test the viability of its use. We have converted our passports and visas to biometrics to make them harder to falsify. You can go to the complete text to read what it encompasses and the protections afforded.
"In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall establish by regulation a Biometric Employment Eligibility Verification pilot program (the `Biometric Pilot'). The purpose of the Biometric Pilot shall be to provide for identity authentication and employment eligibility verification with respect to enrolled new employees which shall be available to subject employers who elect to participate in the Biometric Pilot. Any subject employer may cancel the employer's participation in the Biometric Pilot after one year after electing to participate without prejudice to future participation.
Wow. Now we have “conservatives” saying we shouldn’t do this when we hve “conservatives” saying we should do this. The worst part is both conservative sides have points worth considering! Life is confusing enough without these kinds of things.
You nailed it. All one has to do is look at who is opposing this bill. In addition to the ones listed by you, add the Center for American Progress, La Raza, MALDEF, and almost every Dem.
Oh, as a PS to that last post, please understand I am not against the E-verify program and think it would definitely help “auto-deport” some illegal aliens.
Here is what the ones disagreeing have mentioned that does concern me.
1. Creates a de facto national I.D. System – even for citizen
I’m not positive this would be a problem, but as a Christian, I’m always going to be concerned when you have a blanket federal ID. It just seems too easily to manipulate everyone’s lives when you have something like that. And I do believe that would be a legitimate concern for any conservative.
Just wanted you to know I was not standing in opposition of the E-verify idea itself.
The need for deliberation and debate on sometimes tough matters is the price of liberty in a self-governing republic.
You have to constantly weigh the competing interests of liberty and security.
In this case, in my opinion, this deep incursion on liberty is being made under false pretenses.
Our representatives have refused to do their duty to protect the states from invasion. They have rolled out a welfare red carpet for illegals. They have refused to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
Secure the border. Roll up the red carpet. Enforce the laws we already have. Deport the ones you already have within your grasp.
Until then, don't even talk to me about sacrificing something so fundamental as the right to work and earn your daily bread without interference from or involvement by the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.