Friday, July 8, 2011

Jean Towell Comments on Lamar Smith's HR 2164

Through the years, that I have tried to read legislation and analysis, I am reminded that I fall very short in understanding everything and having no legal background, I fall shorter even more. So it is with what I have read so far. However, I will comment.

In a nutshell, in case you don't want to read the following, I am going to listen to what Kris Kobach, Phyllis Schlafly and Tancredo have to say over what Numbers has set out. I still have regard for Lamar Smith's history in his fight against illegal immigration and think that he means the best with
this legislation, but I think he has been led astray.

Numbers has really laid out their endorsement of this legislation and makes good points. I really question their use of the word fantastic. I am wary of  hyperbolic words when it comes to any legislation, federal or state. Beck says Smith's bill is most important because it has a chance of becoming law this year. Well, so did the 1986 amnesty law. It would not have become law if there had not been the enforcement clause in it. Edwin Meese said Reagan only signed off on it because of the enforcement clause. Well we know what happened with that.

As Kobach said his article: The members of Congress who back Smith's bill suffer from the same delusion that grips all too many politicians in Washington: that the ultimate solution to any problem lies in passing a law in Congress. What they fail to grasp is that the political will to enforce immigration laws, and the esources to do so, are far more important. If the federal immigration laws that are already on the books were adequately enforced, there would be no illegal-immigration problem.

Tancredo says: This broad pre-emption is not warranted or prudent given the continuing federal laxity in immigration enforcement. States should not be barred from employment-related enforcement until the federal government has demonstrated it is willing to do the job.

I feel that Beck is too willing to go along with the Chamber. You read what Kobach said why the Chamber is so eager for this legislation to be passed.  I do not like the states being without any say over what affects their
citizens on this subject because of the past history of the government. The argument that isn't it better to have one uniform law over the different laws in each state. I ask, what is different about that? States all differ in various issues that affect their state. When a person or corporation goes to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state. It is up to each to find out just what is expected so it would be on hiring. As to not all states would pass E-Verify on their own, that does present a problem.

Okay, I'm done.


No comments: