E-Verify works; let's use it

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I like illegal Australians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110614/wl_nm/us_australia_labour_immigration;_ylt=Asn.4i55inUYKuZW6lt86a0fYhAF;_ylu=X3oDMTM1MGR2OWtjBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNjE0L3VzX2F1c3RyYWxpYV9sYWJvdXJfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDYXVzdHJhbGlhMzlz

Australia's boom lures new wave of European immigrants

By Conor Humphries and Mark Bendeich – Tue Jun 14, 10:47 am ET

DUBLIN/SYDNEY (Reuters) – About 100 men in their 20s and 30s, filled a conference room at a Dublin hotel last week to hear a migration agent describe the personal fortunes waiting to be made a world away in the booming mining towns of the Australian outback.

With unemployment running at close to 15 percent in Ireland, and local wages a fraction of those now on offer in Australia, it appeared to be an easy sell.

"I want to go and make money, not just get by," said David Varley, 29, who had been laid off a few weeks earlier from his job as a railway-signals engineer. "A friend just got a job at a mine and she said they're looking for engineers, though I'm not sure what kind."

His friend had lost her job as a quantity surveyor and was thinking of applying for unemployment benefits when she turned to the Internet and immediately saw lots of Australian job ads. Six months later, she was working at a mine there.

"Of course I'd rather stay at home with my friends and family, but if you have to go, you have to go," Varley said. "The amount of people who've left my town to work abroad is phenomenal."

The new migrants are continuing an old tradition. Irish and English were among Australia's first settlers, shipped to the continent as convict labor starting in the late 18th century. Australia's 1851-1861 Gold Rush lured hundreds of thousands more from the British isles and they continued to stream in, seeking their fortunes in goldmines, until the early 20th century.

"THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK"

Migration agent Declan Clune, of international firm Visa First told the men at the Dublin meeting that carpenters could earn $90,000 a year and engineers and surveyors up to $200,000.

"There are a huge number of highly skilled people leaving. And they're not coming back," Clune said.

"We have the skilled educated population that Australia needs. Canada may be closer, but all the work is in Australia. And Australia is the place people want to go."

In Australia, though, immigration agents discover not all Europeans are cut out to work in an open-cut mine under a baking sun and live in remote mining towns like Karratha, where workers sleep in camps built from converted shipping containers.

"Potentially there are big fat pay packets for some people and, yes, the skies are sunny - sometimes too sunny - but it will be a bit different for people from Dublin to live in 40-degree heat in Karratha," said James Maund, general manager of recruitment firm Manpower Australia.

Australia's overseas recruitment drive has so far focused on skilled workers, ranging from mine engineers and geologists to boiler-makers and electricians. Its demand for these skills has been so great mine labor is now scarce worldwide.

In Laos, China-owned Minmetals is flying in miners from as far away as Poland to work its Sepon copper and gold mine there. It brings them in for two weeks at a time in the kind of shuttle operation now familiar to mining firms the world over.

In Australia, air shuttles also bring in Poles, along with workers from New Zealand, the United States and across Asia, especially from among the relatively good English-speakers of the Philippines.

NO LIMIT ON VISAS

Yet the labor shortage persists.

Some employers in Australia blame red-tape, saying the process of issuing short-term work permits for skilled labor, known as 457 visas, is too costly and should be sped up.

The government imposes no limit on the number of 457 visas that can be issued, but it demands employers show they cannot first find or train up Australians for the jobs.

Foreign workers must also have a high level of proficiency in English, a tough condition for many Asians.

Australian business executive Rod Eddington, who now advises the government on infrastructure spending, called last week for the nation's doors to be opened wider to Asian workers in particular, suggesting there was a reluctance to hire them.

"I know it's a hot political topic and a difficult issue to address," Eddington told a business lunch. "But I for a start would be much more liberal with 457 visas and also more open to skilled Asian immigrants here because they add real value to our community."

Shortages are so dire mining companies are now turning to unskilled foreign workers -- known as "clean-skins" in the industry -- to train them up for work in the pits.

Even office workers in Sydney have begun to hang up their suits and ties and swap them for mine overalls, and the farm sector is worried mines will soon tempt their own workers to the desert, leaving them desperate for labor.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Why_Me

[sandinista! 1,816]

It sounds great in theory, but some major issues in actual practice can come up. Who's gonna pay for it? According to the business association guy quoted in this article, it can cost $127 / per verification. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20110415-bills-to-punish-employers-for-hiring-illegal-immigrants-hit-snag.ece

That's kinda steep. And what about false hits? Could it turn into the same kind of fiasco as the no fly list?

Edited June 15, 2011 by sandinista!

[scandal 951]

I like illegal Australians.

Yes, I know. Especially the ones who threaten to come to Boston to smack you around.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

Yes, I know. Especially the ones who threaten to come to Boston to smack you around.

was it a byos party?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Yes, I know. Especially the ones who threaten to come to Boston to smack you around.

I was scared.

[scandal 951]

I was scared.

You should be. He wasn't bluffing.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-oklahoma-immigration-idUSTRE72G0JA20110317

Oklahoma Senate passes Arizona-style immigration bill

(Reuters) - The Oklahoma state Senate on Wednesday approved an Arizona-style immigration bill that gives police the authority to verify the citizenship status of motorists during legal traffic stops.

The bill, passed by a 29-15 vote, also enables police to seize vehicles, real estate, firearms and computers used to engage in human smuggling, armed robberies and other crimes.

The bill now goes to the state House, which last week passed an immigration reform bill that gives officers more authority to question citizenship status.

"Today's vote sends a message to the people of Oklahoma that we have listened to their concerns and acted accordingly," said state Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, sponsor of the bill.

"I authored this proposal because I care about the people of my district and have witnessed firsthand the manner in which illegal immigration can limit economic development, increase crime rates and tear families apart," he said.

Opponents questioned whether the bill could withstand court challenges. They also raised concerns about the effect the immigration reform bill could have on the state's economy.

The original bill called for penalties to be assessed against employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers and included a requirement that the employers fire such workers.

That provision was stripped from the bill after business interests in the state lobbied against it.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Why_Me

[spookyturtle 9,466]

was it a byos party?

No, Australia has more sheep than people so no need to bring your own.

[TBoneTX 45,962]

No, Australia has more sheep than people so no need to bring your own.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Folks,

what is so difficult to understand here?

Don't you think we could build a wall that matches the one China built a few thousand years ago? We walked on the moon over 40 years ago, we spent over $1,000,000,000,000.00 in Afghanistan alone, why would you think we can't build a wall or a fence along the border? I can build this for 10% of the money guestimated, and I would get filthy rich doing it!

Don't you think we could easily implement laws that match those of our neighbor Mexico where every illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime? I was out of status for 13 years, knowing that the worst that could have happened to me under the worst circumstances is that I would have asked a judge to give me 30 days for voluntary departure. If I had faced a year in prison and confiscation of all my assets, from money to cars and whatelse, I and a few hundred thousand others would have left the US in a hurry, trust me!

Don't you think we could make laws like e-Verify mandatory? Of course we could!

So why don't we secure our borders? Why don't we make illegal presence a crime? Why don't we implement laws that would assure that nobody can work in the US who's not allowed to work? Don't you really have a clue?

it's because we want illegal immigration. With "we" I don't mean you and I, I mean businesses, people who employ illegals. The benefit from cheap slave labor and they appreciate that they are not required to use e-Verify. They also do not have to submit an I-9 to the USCIS. This way they can always claim they have seen their workers' "papers." And how do these businesses make sure that things stay pretty much the way they are? By donating money to the campaigns of "their" politicians, of course! No politician will bite the hand that feeds them; it is nothing but human nature of a species that feeds from corruption, the politianus corrupticus.

Why a wall? Why not a dome?

[scandal 951]

And, for another perspective ....

Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations

from The Times' Opinion staff

June 13, 2011 | 3:12 pm

Raul A. Reyes, a lawyer living in New York City, responds to The Times' June 13 Op-Ed article "E-Verify works; let's use it."

Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) advocate the mandatory use of E-Verify to preserve jobs for Americans and crack down on illegal immigration. As a supporter of comprehensive reform, I read their Op-Ed article with great interest and was disheartened by their faulty reasoning, especially in light of the considerable influence the two members of Congress wield over our nation's immigration policy.

They begin their piece by citing the nation's dismal unemployment numbers and quickly segue to their unsourced claim that Americans compete with illegal immigrants for jobs, the reason Smith and Gallegly say mandatory E-Verify checks are needed. Funny, they offer no evidence that citizens are losing out in their quest to land work picking strawberries, cleaning bathrooms or plucking chickens.

Smith and Gallegly write that E-Verify “quickly confirms 99.5% of work-eligible workers.” What they do not say is that the program fails more than half the time at detecting illegal workers. A 2009 study by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services found that E-Verify cleared 54% of undocumented workers to work.

Smith and Gallegly cite a Rasmussen poll reporting that 82% of likely voters thought businesses should be required to use E-Verify. The New York Times' Nate Silver, however, rightly counsels "extreme skepticism" when reviewing polls by Rasmussen Reports. In this case, Rasmussen simply asked people if employers should be required to certify that their employees are legal. This is, in fact, already law. I doubt most Americans would want to be forced into a new government program to get and keep a job.

Citing a study by the Public Policy Institute of California, Smith and Gallegly claim that Arizona's mandatory use of E-Verify has reduced the state's illegal immigration population. They omit one of the institute's key finding: Arizona's use of E-Verify has pushed significant numbers of undocumented workers into the informal economy. Instead of going home, illegal workers have shifted to cash-only transactions, depriving the state of much-needed tax revenue. Is this a policy goal worthy of expanding to all 50 states?

"It is crucial that we promote policies that help grow our economy and increase job opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants," write Smith and Gallegly. I agree. But the National Immigration Law Center estimates a national rollout of E-Verify would result in the loss of about 770,000 jobs. Based on calculations using known error rates for selected employers, the NILC estimates that between 1.2 million and 18.5 million workers would have to consult with the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to correct their records, a task the Government Accountability Office has called "formidable." Almost anyone could be declared ineligible to work: those who have married, divorced or changed their names; legal immigrants and naturalized citizens with paperwork issues; or those unlucky enough to be victims of clerical errors. So much for promoting job growth.

I found it telling that Smith and Gallegly made no mention of the costs of E-Verify. The Department of Homeland Security estimates it would have to spend $765 million on staff, technology and training if the program were to go national. According to a report by Bloomberg Government, small businesses would bear the brunt of compliance costs, spending about $2.6 billion per year to use E-Verify. E-Verify can be a hassle for big corporations too. In 2008, Intel said that about 12% of its workers were incorrectly tagged as ineligible to work.

What's more, as a Latino, I have deep reservations about a program that would probably result in discriminatory hiring practices. If E-Verify were to go national, employers might be understandably hesitant to hire anyone who looked or sounded foreign-born, thereby subjecting Latinos increasingly to profiling and discrimination.

Although I do not support illegal immigration or the hiring of undocumented workers, I fail to see the benefits of E-Verify as outlined by Smith and Gallegly. The costs and unintended consequences of the program would be great; its payoff is at best debatable. Unfortunately, the two members of Congress seem willing to overlook the realities of immigration, economics and civil rights in their misguided attempt to turn this compliance program into an enforcement tool.

-- Raul A. Reyes

[peejay 327]

Why a wall? Why not a dome?

Why not a frigging moat with hungry gators like your hero Obama joked about in his knee pad pandering "immigration reform" speech to Hispanics in El Paso recently?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why not a frigging moat with hungry gators like your hero Obama joked about in his knee pad pandering "immigration reform" speech to Hispanics in El Paso recently?

How about a giant moon laser?

Why not clone back a few T-Rexes and set them loose on the border?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I would like to see something like the Berlin Wall there myself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would like to see something like the Berlin Wall there myself.

Walls and fences are stupid. Moon lasers and T-Rexes are the way forward.

Seriously... you don't need a physical wall, you need a financial one. If it isn't profitable to hire an illegal immigrant, or to be one, they won't come.