Immigrants push for reforms at rallies across U.S.

[pedroh 21]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

[Heracles 417]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

Just the majority.

Every school district, for example, has seen a huge increase in ESOL students of Latino origin. Therefore there has to have been some sort of surge in immigration. I have asked the following before as people say how do you know they are Mexican (or northern Latino)? So what visa did they use to enter the country? This way we can pass on that information to lots of other people around the world, including other parts of South America, who would like to use it too.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

Why not? I am not suggesting we should round people up either but we need to kill the demand. In this economic environment, with Americas loosing their jobs and homes, it should be a criminal offense for anyone to employ a illegal immigrant. The fine should be huge.

The billion dollar question is, why are so many democrats against the use of E-Verify to verify someone status? It's not racist and it doesn't discriminate. You either pass the check or you fail. Furthermore, it should also be compulsory when it comes to an individual seeking to utilize public services.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Constellation

[scandal 951]

How many times does it have to be stated that mass deportations are not necessary nor is illegal alien amnesty #8 the solution. There have already been 7 illegal alien amnesties...what makes anyone believe another is going to solve anything?

Implement E-Verify and people that are not authorized to work legally in the USA will get the pink slip they richly deserve. They have no right to illegal work in America. The rest will take care of itself. Illegal aliens came here unemployed and they can leave here unemployed. These people have their consulates here in the USA to turn to. Illegal aliens are not the responsibility of the American people. Illegal aliens are the responsibility of their governments. We owe them nada.

So why do the Dems refuse to implement E-Verify when millions of Americans are unemployed with more unemployment on the way? Why do the Dems guarantee taxpayer funded stimulus jobs to illegal aliens when millions of Americans are unemployed? Does any registered Democrat have the balls to answer these pointed questions?

Unfortunately this immigration reform Obama is pushing is really just more of the same lies and bullshit that the other immigration reforms of 1986 and 1996 were. You would think the American people would wise up. It is nothing but, first and foremost, a mass amnesty of illegal aliens without any real immigration reform. Amnesty is the cornerstone of this joke. That is the only component that Obama and the Dem leadership has even spoken about. So it is obvious what their only priority is. Does this obvious fact escape anyone's notice?

How about enforcing the laws passed during the last 2 immigration reforms? If the morons won't enforce the law now...is anyone stupid enough to believe they will after yet another amnesty? The answer is...they won't. Another amnesty is not in the best interests of the American people. It never was then and it won't be now.

Interestingly enough, I have no issue with much of what you write. Well, the opening sentence or two. And a few bits later on. For example, I do agree that blanket amnesties only encourage further illegal entries and I would not want to see automatic amnesties granted. I think that's not really under debate - few people seriously suggest such a thing.

Regarding E-Verify, as I understand it, it's a voluntary program and not compulsory except for certain subcontractors who do business with the federal government and who are required to use E-Verify as part of their contract relationships. When you write "Implement E-Verify and people that are not authorized to work legally in the USA will get the pink slip they richly deserve", what do you mean? It is an implemented program. But it's a voluntary program. So, do you mean that you'd like to see it be compulsory across all 50 states, as it is now in Arizona? Ok, I'm open to considering that. But you then acknowledge that you're not just talking about enforcing laws on the books, you want to expand the currently voluntary system. Fine - but that's immigration reform. Gasp!

I'm troubled by your politicization of your protest, labeling Democrats in general and the Obama Administration in particular as being the obstinate ones in this situation. Congress in general, both parties, has been deadlocked on Immigration for years. You write "So why do the Dems refuse to implement E-Verify". Can you cite evidence of this please? As stated, E-Verify is an active program today (voluntary). In what way is it's implementation being blocked by anyone, Democrats or otherwise?

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...0004718190aRCRD

[Heracles 417]

I'm troubled by your politicization of your protest, labeling Democrats in general and the Obama Administration in particular as being the obstinate ones in this situation. Congress in general, both parties, has been deadlocked on Immigration for years. You write "So why do the Dems refuse to implement E-Verify". Can you cite evidence of this please? As stated, E-Verify is an active program today (voluntary). In what way is it's implementation being blocked by anyone, Democrats or otherwise?

Democrats pulled the clause out of the stimulus package. That should have been a mandatory requirement considering this is borrowed money that the US tax payer will have to pay back for years to come. Everyone knows very well who works in construction jobs, amongst many others, in the US. People who will benefit directly from this stimulus package.

E-verify should be a mandatory requirement for any and every employee. It should also be a requirement for anyone seeking any public services. Why should I, as a foreigner, pay thousands in federal ,state and local taxes yet get nothing in return while an illegal immigrant can come here, at their leisure, and also gets to use government services. Services that I don't even get to use. I'm just the fool who came here legally and gets has to pay for it.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Constellation

[scandal 951]

I'm troubled by your politicization of your protest, labeling Democrats in general and the Obama Administration in particular as being the obstinate ones in this situation. Congress in general, both parties, has been deadlocked on Immigration for years. You write "So why do the Dems refuse to implement E-Verify". Can you cite evidence of this please? As stated, E-Verify is an active program today (voluntary). In what way is it's implementation being blocked by anyone, Democrats or otherwise?

Democrats pulled the clause out of the stimulus package. That should have been a mandatory requirement considering this is borrowed money that the US tax payer will have to pay back for years to come.

E-verify should be a mandatory requirement for any and every employee. It should also be a requirement for anyone seeking any public services.

Citation, please? One which specifically lays the blame for this at "Democrats" feet?

I'm not saying it's not true... in all honesty I'm not all that familiar with the subject, and will be quite willing to accept any evidence you show me. On many occasions I've looked at policies adopted by Democrats and said "that's wrong!" when I don't agree with them (trade policies on Colombia being a recent example), I'm willing to do so here. But your say-so won't sway me, a specific credible citation may.

[Heracles 417]

Citation, please? One which specifically lays the blame for this at "Democrats" feet?

I'm not saying it's not true... in all honesty I'm not all that familiar with the subject, and will be quite willing to accept any evidence you show me. On many occasions I've looked at policies adopted by Democrats and said "that's wrong!" when I don't agree with them (trade policies on Colombia being a recent example), I'm willing to do so here. But your say-so won't sway me, a specific credible citation may.

I don't have it as we speak but I have seen it on the news many times before. I paid extra attention to it because I have cursed the TV a number of times over it. Last time I saw something about the stimulus and e-verify, which was a few months ago, they were even questioning whether it will still be around as funding is due to expire soon. On face value though, the democrats are in charge in all levels of government. So what are they doing about it?

Amnesty will only mean that over the next decade or two, rather than 20,000,000 illegals, you will have an extra 50,000,000 illegals. The next round will know that they too will eventually get amnesty.

Someone might think wow we are such nice people and humane but the reality is that for the poor Americans, amnesty cements a future of 3rd world equivalent poverty for them. Instead of having to compete with 10 people for a job, they will have to compete with 20 or 50. Absolutely no country in the world has ever managed to improve their standard of living by increasing the number of people living in poverty. First rule of thumb for most other developed and even 1st world socialist countries is help your own poor and disadvantaged first. Then start to trickle in other disadvantaged people, from abroad, to help them too.

Fighting fire with fire doesn't work with poverty. It only leads to more poverty.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Constellation

[jundp 191]

There are many EFL (which is what school districts call it now) students who are NOT illegal nor are they children of illegals.

Actually, in my area, the largest immigrant population, many of whom are not legal, is from the Philippines.

[scandal 951]

I don't have it as we speak but I have seen it on the news many times before. I paid extra attention to it because I have cursed the TV a number of times over it. Last time I saw something about the stimulus and e-verify, which was a few months ago, they were even questioning whether it will still be around as funding is due to expire soon. On face value though, the democrats are in charge in all levels of government. So what are they doing about it?

Amnesty will only mean that over the next decade or two, rather than 20,000,000 illegals, you will have an extra 50,000,000 illegals. The next round will know that they too will eventually get amnesty.

Someone might think wow we are such nice people and humane but the reality is that for the poor Americans, amnesty cements a future of 3rd world equivalent poverty for them. Instead of having to compete with 10 people for a job, they will have to compete with 20 or 50. Absolutely no country in the world has ever managed to improve their standard of living by increasing the number of people living in poverty. First rule of thumb for most other developed and even 1st world socialist countries is help your own poor and disadvantaged first. Then start to trickle in other disadvantaged people, from abroad, to help them too.

Fighting fire with fire doesn't work with poverty. It only leads to more poverty.

OK.

So, firstly - no citation. Just more opinion.

Secondly, more rehashing of all the reasons why "amnesty" is a bad thing. Haven't we covered this? I think I've stated several times now that I personally agree that a blanket amnesty is bad, largely for the reason you give - it encourages more law breaking behavior.

Thirdly - we get a rant about historically unsubstantiated "fact" : "Absolutely no country in the world has ever managed blah blah blah...". I mean, those kind of statements are the easiest paper tigers to knock down. OH YEAH, HE SEZ: Well what about Moldonova in the mid 13th-century that grew its standard of living 78.3% after blah blah blah. Neither you nor I nor ANYONE can say "absolutetely no country did ANYTHING". Really dude. Don't make those kind of sweeping generalizations. You have a possibly credible argument, buttress it with facts not nonsense. (I'm trying to help you out here....)

All right. Back to E-Verify. So since you wouldn't find a citation, I googled a few minutes myself.

Here's one: http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/13...bill?page=0%2C1

Full text of the article is just below, since I want to refer to it here.

Here are some observations.

- Nowhere does it specifically mention Democrats as being responsible for removing the provision.

- The provision would have only affected employers getting federal stimulus money. It would NOT have made E-Verify mandatory for all employers in the country. That's still an improvement (if one believes E-Verify is a good thing), but hardly your (presumed) goal of mandatory E-Verify as a way of ending illegal workers in the US once and for all.

- The "pro" and "con" arguments seem to boil down to:

The Con, as espoused by ACLU spokesman Sparapani - is that E-Verify relies on outdated data and will have false-positives. Namely people who ARE authorized to work in the US would be rejected. If that's really true, that's bad. Imagine for a moment if you or someone you know got flagged as ineligible to work because the databases are out of date.

The Pro, as espoused by this fellow Krikorian , is that the databases are just fine, and the ACLU guy is blowing smoke.

(I've highlighted in bold the passages by these 2 guys).

So, whom am I to believe? Is there an impartial nonpartisan source on the quality of the databases being relied upon for E-Verify?

E-Verify hiring mandate dropped from stimulus bill

Jaikumar Vijayan, Computerworld02.13.2009

A provision that would have forced employers who get money federal stimulus money to first vet the employment status of their workers using the federal E-Verify program has been stripped from the final version of the US$787 billion spending package .

The move is a victory for those who called the E-Verify requirement unnecessary and said it would seriously delay numerous projects, especially "shovel-ready" ones in the construction sector. But it is likely to come as a disappointment to those who felt the provision would prevent illegal immigrants from getting stimulus jobs paid for by taxpayer dollars.

Also excised from the final conference report was a provision that would have extended the E-Verify program beyond March. 6, when it is set to expire. An extension could still be included in other legislation before the program ends.

The E-Verify system is run by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Citizen and Immigration Services, together with the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is a free Internet-based employment eligibility verification system that lets employers compare information from an employee's job application with data from the DHS and SSA to determine work eligibility in the U.S.

According to a DHS description of the program, the SSA database against which the matching is done contains more than 425 million records, while the DHS' immigration databases hold more than 60 million records. In most cases, employers get search results in seconds. Only about 100,000 employers out of more than 7 million in the U.S. are currently signed up for the program.

Recent enhancements to the E-Verify system include a photo-screening tool for biometric verification and naturalization data that can be used to confirm the citizenship status of recently naturalized U.S. citizens. All federal contractors and subcontractors were supposed to start using the program this May under the assumption that it will be renewed.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Friday described the E-Verify system as a "flawed" verification program. Including E-Verify in the stimulus bill would have held Americans "hostage to bad government data and even worse government database systems," said Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU. He noted that the databases on which the E-Verify program is based are outdated and flawed.

"The reason why we don't have mandatory verification is because the government hasn't done the hard work of going back and scrubbing those databases clean" of flawed and outdated information, he said. Neither has there been any effort to build system for helping out individuals erroneously identified by the system as being ineligible to work in the U.S., he said.

E-Verify opponents said its use made the employment verification process unreliable and would not have stopped people from using fraudulent IDs to get work authorization. They had also noted that many state and local governments have not signed up for the program, meaning they would have had to roll out cumbersome new processes for hiring workers and checking eligibility. Questions were also raised about the system's ability to handle a sudden surge in e-verification requests.

Mike Aitken, director of governmental affairs at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a trade association in Alexandria, Va., praised the decision to drop the requirement from the stimulus package. But he said it should still be extended beyond March 6. "SHRM is not supportive of letting it expire," Aitken said, stressing that the focus should be on making it more reliable.

Those reliability issues are overblown, according to E-Verify backers. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a Washington-based immigration watchdog group, said dropping the verification requirement was a mistake, both from a policy and a political sense. "As a policy matter, when you are spending $900 [sic] billion on job creation it should be for Americans and

legal immigrants and not illegal aliens," he said.

Krikorian said that doubts about the scalability of the E-Verify system were flat-out misleading. "They have the hardware and the software capacity right now to screen all new hires. It is happening right now," he said.

He also insisted that the number of instances where the E-Verify system had mistakenly identified someone as being ineligible for a job constituted a very small portion of the overall eligibility checks made by employers. "If they were a lot of Americans being somehow turned down, I guarantee that 60 Minutes and others would have been all over it," he said.

According to the DHS' own estimates, about 96% of employees are authorized for work within 24 hours, while about 4% receive initial mismatches. Less than one-half of a percent of those mismatches are later confirmed to be authorized to work, meaning the system is generally reliable in spotting mismatches.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

Seriously? Which ones? I've yet to see a post on VJ stating that all illegal immigrants are Mexican, nor that all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

Seriously? Which ones? I've yet to see a post on VJ stating that all illegal immigrants are Mexican, nor that all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

agreed.

[peejay 327]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

Playing the victim again, eh?

So who exactly said all Mexicans are illegal and that all illegals are Mexican? I haven't seen anyone post that.

Roughly 60% of illegals are Mexican. Look it up.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

Playing the victim again, eh?

So who exactly said all Mexicans are illegal and that all illegals are Mexican? I haven't seen anyone post that.

Roughly 60% of illegals are Mexican. Look it up.

He be protectin his shite! always will. It what he do!

[peejay 327]

I'm troubled by your politicization of your protest, labeling Democrats in general and the Obama Administration in particular as being the obstinate ones in this situation. Congress in general, both parties, has been deadlocked on Immigration for years. You write "So why do the Dems refuse to implement E-Verify". Can you cite evidence of this please? As stated, E-Verify is an active program today (voluntary). In what way is it's implementation being blocked by anyone, Democrats or otherwise?

Democrats pulled the clause out of the stimulus package. That should have been a mandatory requirement considering this is borrowed money that the US tax payer will have to pay back for years to come.

E-verify should be a mandatory requirement for any and every employee. It should also be a requirement for anyone seeking any public services.

Citation, please? One which specifically lays the blame for this at "Democrats" feet?

I'm not saying it's not true... in all honesty I'm not all that familiar with the subject, and will be quite willing to accept any evidence you show me. On many occasions I've looked at policies adopted by Democrats and said "that's wrong!" when I don't agree with them (trade policies on Colombia being a recent example), I'm willing to do so here. But your say-so won't sway me, a specific credible citation may.

Geez buddy...the stimulus package passed with no Republican votes and E-Verify was purposely removed from the House version before eventually being passed and signed by Obama. How much more obvious does someone have to lay it out for you.

Really...if this is of any interest to you go look it up. I got nothing to prove to you. It's out there if you want to learn about it.

[natty bumppo 297]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

Playing the victim again, eh?

and looking for a place to file a claim ...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican.

Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal.

I have a huge problem with illegal immigration, though I don't have a problem with those who are here now becoming LPRs as long as they go to the back of the line and wait their turn. However, it really isn't feasible to send everyone whence they came as most of them have nothing to return to.

WRONG

according to some vj'ers

Playing the victim again, eh?

and looking for a place to file a claim ...