Friday, July 8, 2011

Peter Morrison Discusses Lamar Smith's HR 2164

From: "Peter Morrison"
Sent: 2011-07-08 10:54
To: "Jean Towell"
Subject: Re: Thank you & request

Here are some objections to the objections to the bill:

A. We have four states with an E-Verify law. We have 46 without one, and even in Texas the business lobby is so powerful it seems unlikely one would ever pass. We need a national E-Verify law if we can get one.  The whole purpose of passing reform at the state level was to bring big business to the negotiating table, because businesses would rather have one uniform standard for compliance.

This has been NumbersUSA's strategy for quite a while, and I agree with it.

B. Mandating E-Verify and stripping away business licenses does nothing for the illegal aliens who already have jobs. In fact, E-Verify is specifically prohibited from being used on existing employees. This bill expands its use to existing employees within 2 years, which will result in millions of illegal aliens losing their jobs. NO STATE BILL CAN EVER DO THIS UNDER CURRENT FEDERAL LAW.

C. States have limited enforcement resources. Arizona is simply not going to strip that many business licenses. This bill allows them to continue to do that, however.

D. Immigration is, according to the Constitution, a federal issue.  The Feds do a lot of things they shouldn't, but immigration is one area they do legitimately hold all authority. Federal immigration reform in 1924 resulted in a much-needed break from immigration that preserved the status quo in our country until 1965. Federal law can play this role again. If we don't think there's even the possibility of a federal solution because the feds will always find a way not to enforce, then the conversation would likely be centered upon secession and not immigration. It makes sense to try this less painful solution.

E. On balance, if this bill passes, our immigration policy will be better. We get national E-Verify in two years, E-Verify for existing employees, and we give up immediate E-Verify for new hires in Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. I think that's a good trade.

 Thanks,

 Peter

4 comments:

Faye said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faye said...

I don't know yet. Seems to me that supporting this bill goes against all the work Arizona accomplished and also against a Supreme Court ruling in our favor...for once. And, why will we have to give up “immediate E-Verify for new hires in Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona?” And the federal government's record in enforcement of any kind is very poor. Even if the bill passes, we have no guarantees that they will enforce it. Peter has some very good points otherwise. There's a lot of us out here getting pure dee disgusted and ready to adopt the motto of "No Retreat, No Surrender."

levotb said...

Peter, I'm very disappointed in your position on this bill. Gaye is absolutely right. States rights and the recent Chamber v. Whiting decision by the SCOTUS strengthens 1070, LAWA and all E-verify state laws on the books. BTW, you're way off on the number of 1070 states--there are SIX now--AL, AZ, GA, IN, SC and UT. 7 states have mandatory E-verify laws for all businesses. See Kris Kobach's June 22nd speech before Missouri Eagle Forum. He hits it out of the park. If the preemption clause is removed and the grandfathering in clause is also removed--both placed there by the Chamber of Commerce that supports this terrible bill--then Rep. Smith will have the grass roots support he'll need to get it passed in 2013. However, it has no chance of passing the Senate.

levotb said...

I meant "Faye"! Sorry, Faye!

Also, you are incorrect about the number of 1070 states--there are 6...AL, AZ, GA, IN, SC and UT. AND there are 7 with E-verify-only laws that would be affected by 2164...AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC and TN.