Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Mandatory Everify for Nation??

I have wondered why the US Chamber of Commerce supports HR 2164 "Legal Workforce Act" which would mandate the use of Everify nationally over a period of time. 

 Kris Kobach   has reservations about the bill based on the ideas that the federal government would not actually enforce it, if passed, and states have the enforcement right as noted in the recent Supreme Court case
Kobach: "The goal of the state laws is to encourage illegal aliens to self-deport. If Washington gets a clue and joins the states in this strategy of attrition through enforcement, so much the better. But the ideal enforcement environment is one in which both the states and the feds are on the field."  
"The states are actually enforcing these laws, in sharp contrast to the federal government’s lax enforcement approach under President Obama."
These comments (below) from Phyllis Schlafly add a little more grist to the mill.   Her proposed amendment, re tax deductions for wages , is an excellent idea. 
The comment on restricting states to mandatory use of everify only to government employees
was not readily found in HR2164, unless it's this proposal  (which it doesn't seem to say): -
"(2) PREEMPTION- The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law, ordinance, policy, or rule, including any criminal or civil fine or penalty structure, insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to the hiring, continued employment, or status verification for employment eligibility purposes, of unauthorized aliens. A State, locality, municipality, or political subdivision may exercise its authority over business licensing and similar laws as a penalty for failure to use the verification system described in subsection (d) to verify eployment eligibility when and as required under subsection (b)."
On the subject of  forbidding the states the right to punish, here is the proposed change to current law (read the highlighted text, the italicized words were added for clarification) :
Proposed: `(3) GOOD FAITH DEFENSE-
`(A) DEFENSE- An employer (or person or entity that hires, employs, recruits or refers for fee, or is otherwise obligated to comply with this section) who establishes that it has complied in good faith with [Everify] the requirements of subsection (b)--
`(i) shall not be liable to a job applicant, an employee, the Federal Government, or a State or local government, under Federal, State, or local criminal or civil law for any employment-related action taken with respect to a job applicant or employee in good-faith reliance on information provided through the system established under subsection (d); and
`(ii) has established compliance with [hiring legal employees] its obligations under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and subsection (b) absent a showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien.

Compared to the current law:  ORIGINAL : "(3) Defense   A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section 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."

Phyllis Schlafly   "Lamar Smith's E-Verify Bill Must Be Amended"
E-Verify, a computer process that makes it fast and easy for employers to check the validity of employees' Social Security numbers to ascertain if they are legal, was created by Congress as a voluntary system. It demonstrates its utility by verifying individuals within a few seconds with 99.5 percent accuracy, but only about 2 percent of businesses actually use it. Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007 to require the use of E-Verify by businesses in that state and to allow the state to revoke the business license of any companies that knowingly employed illegal aliens.
On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-three decision (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting), upheld the Arizona law. The Court rejected the pro-amnesty claque's argument that immigration enforcement is exclusively the federal government's responsibility. . . .
The pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was the loser in the Arizona case, conspired with House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to introduce H.R. 2164, which unless amended, will reverse Arizona's significant victory. This bill sounds helpful because it pretends to make E-Verify mandatory nationwide, but it actually ties the hands of the states.
H.R. 2164 pre-empts the states from requiring use of E-Verify unless employees work for state or local governments. That's equivalent to giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are currently employed in our country.
H.R. 2164 forbids the states from using their constitutional power to revoke licenses from businesses that hire illegal aliens unless there has been "a showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien." There is no likelihood that an Obama administration will prosecute employers who use E-Verify but fail to fire the
illegals, or who contract out part of their workforce to circumvent the system.

The arguments for Lamar Smith's H.R. 2164 are fallacious. We are told that only the federal government can do anything about the immigration issue, but the recent Supreme Court decision provides the definitive rebuttal to that. We're told we need a nationwide congressional law because states like California and New York will never pass an Arizona-style law.
Now that states have the go-ahead from the Supreme Court to implement mandatory E-Verify and voluntary attrition is taking place, there's a better chance that many more states will imitate Arizona than that the Obama administration will ever enforce E-Verify.

Since Arizona's law went into effect, 80,000 illegal aliens have already left that state, and Georgia has seen a similar exodus. Their voluntary departure is without cost to the taxpayers.

An additional way to get employers to obey the law against employing illegal aliens would be to amend H.R. 2164 with Rep. Steve King's, R-Iowa, proposal to make E-Verify a condition for the employer to take a tax deduction for wages paid, a provision already adopted by Alabama. That would put the incentive on the employer where it belongs, and we would not need prosecutions or deportations.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Solving the Utah Illegal Alien Problem

A few items concerning the situation with the Guest Worker program in Utah and a better way to SOLVE the illegal alien problem 

First:  The Arizona 2007 Everify Law which was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court, provided many of the items needed to aid in the current illegal alien problem by making it more difficult to ignore hiring laws:
  • It required ALL employers to use Everify
  • It provided for penalties of suspension, 'probation,' and then possible loss of a business license.
  • It allowed citizen complaint with substantial proof of illegal employment to be filed, investigated and, if valid, rectified - with appropriate punishment.
  • It indemnified an employer from punishment if Everify had approved the unauthorized alien.
Second: In Utah, there is an initiative being proposed at the county or local level based on this decision and the AZ law underway (so far introduced in three counties) to mandate Everify for all employers.

Third:  Everify has a very high positive success rate in matching and authorizing employees.  Everify can currently only be used for newly HIRED employees, legislation has been proposed to expand it to all employees.

Fourth:  Utah law prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens, as does federal law.  Utah requires ALL public entities to use Everify.   Utah requires ALL businesses with more than 15 employees to use Everify.

Fifth:  Utah has not complied vary well with either law.  

Sixth:  I totally agree it is a sad day when we must use force to comply with laws.  Regrettably, there ARE employers that use, and abuse, the system to gain unfair advantage by putting cost burden on the taxpayers that may otherwise be paid for by obedient businesses.  Some may not believe this but many love the "cheap labor" illegal alien as a profit making ploy.   The Salt Lake Chamber is THE biggest proponent of the Utah Guest Worker program

Seventh:  There has been a debate over the term "amnesty" in connection with the Utah Guest Worker Permit.  For those that are offended by the term, because the illegal alien would be required to pay a fine, I would point out that the fine is far less than the cost to come to the US legally.  For those politically sensitive to the term, you may call it simple SALE of Utah residency, to the lowest common denominator.

It should also be mentioned that any employer of current illegal alien who would hire the same person as a "Guest Worker" would receive NO penalty or punishment (AMNESTY) under HB 116 for his non compliance with Utah law.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Response to HB 116 Email Support

Concerning legalization of illegal aliens in Utah, the sophistry continues unabated  In fact HB116 IS yet another step in the continuing process of legalizing, accepting and promoting (in the state of Utah) the illegal alien, undocumented alien or unauthorized alien (whatever one would like to call them).   The process was begun by the Salt Lake Chamber, the Sutherland Institute and various religious and other pro- illegal pseudo-compassionate organizations and various government entities.

The process has included failure, or reluctance enforce Utah (and federal law) issuing Utah Drivers' Licenses and later Driver Privilege Cards, awarding Instate Tuition, virtually ignoring Official English law, accepting and promoting of certain 'heritages' (over others) and  massive propaganda campaigns through local media in support of illegal immigrants. 
  ***Further Rebuttal comments below ***
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:37 PM, xxx (State delegate) ; wrote:  I received this e-mail earlier today. 
Dear Fellow Republicans,
America’s federal immigration system is broken. ***Mainly due to failed enforcement *** This failed federal system has resulted in millions of people being in the US illegally. In spite of this federal dereliction of duty, the federal government mandates that Utah taxpayers PAY FOR the health care, education, and other services required, BY FEDERAL LAW, to be provided to illegal aliens. ***some by courts, some be law, some by Utah law ***This is the largest unfunded federal mandate in the history of our country. ***Making undocumented legal workers in Utah will NOT reduce the costs of educating illegal alien children, it merely institutionalizes the payment for children of 'guest workers' ***

HB 116 stops the defacto amnesty that exists today for illegals as a result of our federal government’s abject, dismal, pathetic failure to address the issue of illegal immigration. ***changing status from undocumented to 'guest' is amnesty or, if preferred, sale of Utah residency *** HB 116 doesn’t regulate immigration, but instead addresses the impacts of over 100,000 people already in Utah illegally. ***and continues or exacerbates the problems for Utah taxpayers and Utah unemployed *** HB 116 provides strong enforcement by assessing a fine up to 10 times the maximum federal penalty (USC 1325) and requires criminal background checks and fingerprinting to enter a database, a practical mechanism to enforce immigration law. ***But only if the illegal choose to 'come out of the shadows *** HB 116 eliminates taxpayer subsidies by requiring illegals to pay for their own health care, pay taxes and obtain insurance. ***and receive amnesty for previous crimes for which they have never been prosecuted (ID theft, employment, etc. *** HB 116 fights crime by funding the prosecution of violent and dangerous criminals. ***Theoretically already being done ***HB 116 penalizes businesses with a “three strikes” law that will revoke an employer’s business or professional license for up to a year. ***unless they are using 'uverify' ***

Below you will find a copy of the Repeal HB 116 and Replace resolution with a line by line rebuttal. Whether you like HB 116 or not, the whereas statements in this resolution don't tell the truth regarding HB 116.
HB 116 is constitutional and does comply with the Republican Party platform. If you wish to see for yourself the actual content of the bill and bill highlights, you may link to it at the web site


Bob Babcock
State Delegate, Precinct 4212

Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace

WHEREAS, HB116 violates the Constitution of the United States, which:
HB 116 doesn’t violate the letter or the spirit of the Constitution based on immigration matters, but rather, HB 116 allows Utah to assert its 10th Amendment Constitutional rights. The only way HB 116 might be considered unconstitutional is if Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th amendment are considered subservient to federal supremacy and federal pre-emption.  ***There are mixed legal opinion on this issue ***

Delegates powers over immigration to the United States Congress;

The US Constitution delegates “naturalization” and “invasion” to the Federal Government. ***Surely this does not mean that “invasion'” is a function of the federal government ***HB 116 doesn’t attempt to regulate either, but instead regulates illegals who are already here. HB 116 only addresses the impacts of illegals that were ALREADY domiciled in Utah prior to May 10, 2011, that by federal law Utah is not allowed to deport and the federal government refuses to deport. ***However, if federal and state laws were enforced, e.g. everify use – no jobs = self deportation ***

Results in a breach of federal immigration law;

HB 116 won't become effective until July 2013 to allow Utah time to apply for a federal waiver. If the waiver is granted, HB 116 will unequivocally not be a breach of federal immigration law. ***And if the waiver is NOT granted??? ***

WHEREAS, HB116 violates the Utah State Republican Party Immigration Platform, which states:

HB 116 complies with the Utah Republican Platform.

We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders;

HB 116 has nothing to do with control of our borders. HB 116 deals with the impacts of over 100,000 illegals already here in Utah. Only those with established domicile in Utah prior to May 10, 2011 are eligible.

We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants;

HB 116 has nothing to do with amnesty or legal status for illegal immigrants. ***Would not a Guest Worker Permit change legal status? ***USC 1325) for trespassing into our country. ***and still be illegal in the United States if no waiver is given ***

We believe that the current laws against employing illegal immigrants should be vigorously enforced;

HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for those already here illegally. Without a criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. ***If they have only committed the crime, but have not been arrested, they will be awarded amnesty for an crime committed *** Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced. ***If they have a “criminal” background, would they even apply? ***

WHEREAS, HB116 violates the National Republican Party Immigration Platform, which includes:

***”Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test: Does it serve the national interest?" Does HB 116 serve the national interest? No, it serves a narrow self-interest within the state of Utah.***
HB 116 complies with the National Republican Party Platform.

Border security is essential to national security;

HB 116 has nothing to do with control of our borders. HB 116 deals with the impacts of over 100,000 people in Utah illegally. Only those with established domicile in Utah prior to May 10, 2011 are eligible.
Enforcement of existing laws;
***Judging from past 'enforcement' of HB 81, HB 251 et al, any enforcement against undocumented workers and/or their employers will be minimal. ***

***HB 116 also gives amnesty for employers who have hired illegal aliens ***
HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for illegal immigrants. Without criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced.***Laws can, and should be, vigorously enforced AGAINST illegal aliens even without a database. ***
Enforcement of the law against those who overstay their visas;

HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for illegal immigrants. Without criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced.***Laws can, and should be, vigorously enforced AGAINST illegal aliens even without a database. How does granted them permission to work in Utah (their probable reason for overstay) penalize them?***
Real consequences, including denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of federal and state statutes that prohibit sanctuary policies;

HB 116 inherently prohibits sanctuary cities as it provides law enforcement the tools necessary to prosecute crimes. HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for illegal immigrants. Without criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced.***Any city currently giving sanctuary status (not enforcing existing laws) is given amnesty by HB 116 ***
Prohibition of driver's licenses for illegal aliens and affirmative action through in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens;

HB 116 does not provide a drivers license. HB116 does not provide in-state tuition rates for those here illegally. HB 116 does modify an existing “driving privilege” card to make it more difficult to obtain.
***Utah already IS one of the few states who provide official driving privileges. It, therefore HAS a fairly extensive list of the 'shadow' illegal and does nothing about that status. ***
Opposition to government policies that encourage or reward illegal activity;

HB 116 does not encourage or reward illegal activity. HB 116 contains some of the strongest provisions in the country regarding enforcement of existing laws. HB 116 eliminates taxpayer subsidies for health care, education and other services. HB 116 leads the nation in the fight against crime including identity theft. HB 116 prosecutes non-compliant businesses. Taken as a whole, HB116 is a strong deterrent to illegals coming to or staying in Utah if they have committed any crimes.
***HB 116 absolutely encourages illegals as have many of our current policies. With a Guest Worker family permit an expanded number of illegals (now GW Family) could come to Utah. ***

Expresses concern that some Republican legislators voted for HB116 and that our Republican Governor signed the act, insomuch as it clearly violates State and National Republican Party Platforms and faces serious Constitutional challenges;

Urges all Utah State Republican Legislators and the Governor to repeal HB116; and ensure that any immigration legislation is fully constitutional and adheres to the principles of the Republican Party Platform.


The Utah Republican Party Chair shall deliver printed copies of this Resolution to all state legislators,Governor Herbert, Lt. Governor Bell and Attorney General Shurtleff within 10 days.

***Vote for REPEAL of HB 116 ***

Friday, June 10, 2011

New LDS Statement on Immigration

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has issued a new statement on immigration,  apparently replacing, or supplanting, a previous statement.  
With a vote on repealing Utah's proposed Guest Worker Program coming shortly at the State Republican Convention, the timing is interesting.

Each and every church, of course, has a right to express and opinion, as do individuals.  It is also appropriate for everyone to make their own decision based on their principles, beliefs, understanding and knowledge.

This statement can be construed in many ways, especially for those opposing a Utah Guest Worker program.

While the statement, "the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  will find few in disagreement, others may be more 'controversial.'

As in the Utah Compact, the statement declares:  "As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government."    
Again, another noncontroversial statement,  other statements seem more subject to interpretation:

For example,   "The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage."

Personally, I have seen nothing in the policies and stance in the movement to eliminate the Utah Guest worker Program that targets any group - unless that group is 'undocumented immigrants.'   I know of very few that are targeting "one heritage."  I know of far fewer (none) in favor of "mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families."  

If a particular heritage is the predominant portion of 'undocumented immigrants,' perhaps the question needs to be asked "why?"   Further, why should one "heritage" be exempt from obeying the law?  (If that is what is being suggested.)

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God." 

I believe I can treat everyone as a child of God and still expect them to abide by laws and live by a standard of respect for those laws and I suspect most people can do the same.

The package of Utah's recently passed 'comprehensive' laws did contain other proposal in addition to enforcement (HB 497) by attempting alleviate some of the problems with current immigration laws with HB 466 an HB 469.   A summary of the bills can be found here.

"The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

I can support this idea and my understanding is that there are legal ways for illegal aliens to do so; go through the proper procedures to obtain a visa.  It is possible to return to their home country and complete the process.  It may take time, but most good things do - and it will be worth the effort.  Remaining in one's homeland is another principle that the church has long taught.

From a companion statement, we are admonished to be less judgmental.   As a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I agree that most people may need to be less judgmental and I am satisfied that the Church reiterated the idea that "Bishops are in the best position to make appropriate judgments as to Church privileges."

I hope and trust that most Church leaders and members will give due consideration to the completeness and entirety of the restored Gospel in making these decisions.