Lamar Smith's HR 2164 E-Verify Bill

Ok.  We've done all the investigating we're going to do on HR 2164 and, thankfully, there is opposition building on Lamar Smith's bill for federally-mandated E-Verify.  Everything we've dug up can be found here.

Here's a list of the representatives supporting it that need to be tuned in to the pre-emptive aspects of this bill.  We want federally-mandated E-Verify, but not at the cost this bill is requiring.  With the historical behavior of Congress, we cannot trust that Congress will amend this bill prior to passage and do not trust them to pass legislation protecting those rights at a later date.

Here's the representatives supporting this bill.  I am totally shocked that Sensenbrenner, Issa, Pence, Steve King, Gohmert, Poe, Hunter, and Jones are supporting this bill.  They know better.  When we're in a big fight about a  bill, we'd be contacting all these representatives by one method or another.

Rep. Sensenbrenner
Rep. Coble  
Rep. Gallegly
Rep. Goodlatte
Rep. Lungren
Rep. Issa
Rep. Pence
Rep. Steve King
Rep. Gohmert
Rep. Jordan
Rep. Poe
Rep. Chaffetz
Rep. Griffin
Rep. Marino
Rep. Gowdy
Rep. Ross
Rep. Adams
Rep. Quayle
Rep. Hunter
Rep. Westmoreland
Rep. Roe
Rep. Jones
Rep. West

Right now, let's see if we can get enough input in to our own legislators to make them stop and question what they're doing.

ALERT: Congressional members e-mail addresses:


Senator John Cornyn

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

U.S. Represenative Mike Conaway

My e-mail to them:

Dear Senator/Representative ________________,

I am writing in regards to Lamar Smith's HR 2164, which establishes federally-mandated E-Verify.  Although I have long wanted a federally-mandated E-Verify bill passed in order to help control illegal immigration, I cannot support this bill because of the pre-emptive passages in it.  We cannot gut the Arizona E-Verify bill and undermine states' rights and the 10th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling in support of Arizona's effort to establish E-Verify.  Should this bill be passed, I feel that it will lead to the usurption of states' rights by the federal government in areas not even connected to illegal immigration.  I am aware of the current efforts to amend the bill to get rid of the pre-emptive passages and of efforts to construct other legislation that would correct the situation.   The bill, unamended to protect states' rights, should never see the light of day.  To pass it to gain E-Verify at all costs will wind up costing us Liberty.

Sincerely,

Faye Hall

Well, I'm shocked...Look who sent me an e-mail

From: david levin
Sent: 2011-07-20 22:01
Subject: Re: Hi Faye-Bravo!

Hi Faye,

Dave Levine, host of The Dave Levine Show, here. Great to see you oppose HR 2164! I'm very disappointed in "Peter Morrison"'s position on this. But, so it goes.

I'm trying to get anti-HR 2164 folks together to pressure those Conservative Congressmen who are lining up behind it to pull their support. There are probably more of them than the following:

Rep. Sensenbrenner
Rep. Coble
Rep. Gallegly
Rep. Goodlatte
Rep. Lungren
Rep. Issa
Rep. Pence
Rep. Steve King
Rep. Gohmert
Rep. Jordan
Rep. Poe
Rep. Chaffetz
Rep. Griffin
Rep. Marino
Rep. Gowdy
Rep. Ross
Rep. Adams
Rep. Quayle
Rep. Hunter
Rep. Westmoreland
Rep. Roe
Rep. Jones
Rep. West

The ones in red are the Co-Sponsors. Most discouraging is Rep. Walter B. Jones. Also, Rep. McClintock isn't taking a position which means he'll probably support it. These Congressmen know that angering the Tea Partiers could cost them votes next year. McClintock had to have a recount last November and barely squeaked by.

My FB page is very active on this under "Dave Levine". See you there, I hope! I have many friends in Texas, particularly in Austin.

Keep up those great posts! You're right on the money! Don't forget to tell folks who may not know about Kris Kobach's excellent speech before the Missouri Eagle Forum on June 22nd at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isf67ms4qjg

Regards,
Dave/The Dave Levine Show

Here's the link for the pertinent area on his regular blog:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/rep-mcclintock-rep-rohrbacher

Well, I couldn't find his facebook page right off...don't have time today.  But this is really interesting.  I was getting depressed about Lamar Smith and this bill.  We may have a chance of fighting this bill after all. ~Faye

Faye Discusses Lamar Smith's HR 2164

Ok, I've fiddled with this until I'm blue in the face.  I may do one more thing and call Smith's office to get their opinion on the pre-emptive aspects of this bill before making a final decision, but as the bill stands, I cannot support it.  We've been hoodwinked so many times and had victories trashed that I can't trust there will be amendments prior to passage or more laws forthcoming to maintain our 10th Amendment rights.  And Arizona got a Supreme Court ruling on this.  I can't support a bill that would undermine that.  It looks like the bill has enough support from the big organizations and has a pretty fair chance of passing if it ever comes to the floor.  It may not make it to the floor under the current situation with the debt ceiling crisis.  You just never know with those congressional jokers playing tricks in the middle of the night.  As much as we've wanted federally-mandated E-Verify, this is a compromise I can't, in good conscience, make.  If it does pass as it is and we lose the protection of what we currently have and wind up being forced to accept God only knows what not even pertaining to illegal immigration, the only comfort I'll have is the ability to say, "I told you so."

FAIR Comments on Lamar Smith's HR 2164

Federation for American Immigration Reform

Faye - FAIR has long supported requiring employers to participate in E-Verify and commends Chairman Smith on his important and foresighted legislation. Still, FAIR does maintain serious concerns about some provisions of H.R. 2164, including... one that preempts state and local laws regarding the hiring of illegal aliens, and another that increases the amount of evidence prosecutors need to enforce the law against unscrupulous employers. FAIR is working diligently to achieve mandatory E-Verify legislation that will allow states with existing immigration laws to continue to enforce those laws, and require businesses to take steps to ensure their workers are legal.

Federation for American Immigration Reform FAIR has detailed summaries of both bills here -http://www.fairus.org/site​/PageNavigator/legislation​/legislative_resources/Leg​islative_Analysis.html.

Paul Streitz Speaks Out on Lamar Smith's HR 2164

From Comprehensive Immigration Reduction


"Bay Buchanan

"The Chamber's (Chamber of Commerce) "death pill is to use the doctrine of "federal-pre-emption" to prohibit individual statess like Alabama and Arizona from enforcing their own tough laws."

If this bill passes we lose everything we've won--everything--and we return to a system where we hope the federal government will do its job...and we know how well that works! The bill will enpower only the federal government to police employment of illegal aliens--states will be prohibited for doing so!!"

Letter July 5, 2011
http://www.teamamericapac.org/

.VDare.com writes "Beck writes that he shared the above concerns, but “the history of E-Verify leads us to believe that this law will be different. The fact is that over a quarter of a million employers have already chosen to use E-Verify voluntarily, with another 1,300 joining each week. Once all employers are required to use it, we believe that the vast majority of employers will, because they actually want to obey the law, especially if it is easy.”

It seems to me that Beck misses the economic issues and does not understand functioning businesses.  Self-employed American contractors did not want to hire illegal workers. They preferred to hire American workers. But a few were willing to hire illegals. They bid on jobs and gave lower prices with the illegal workers. They gained more jobs and the companies using all American workers began to go out of business. Eventually, they all ended up using illegals and there were no American workers.

Passing a law that has no means of enforcement is crazy. Or in Chamber of Commerce Non-Enforcement Bill, it prevents interested parties from enforcing it, is a "poison pill." Bay Buchanan is right on the money.

She further says, that Lou Barletta, Kris Kobach and Russell Pearce have joined with her to defeat this provision and the bill if necessary. Where Tom Tancredo stands on this, I do not know. She does not mention him in this letter. I remember that he endorsed the Chamber's poison pill, but maybe not. If so, he should rethink it and condemn this bill. Better to wait to 2012 and a Republican Congress and Senate.

Paul Streitz
Comprehensive Immigration Reduction

http://www.comprehensiveimmigrationreduction.com/

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

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.

Jean

Pat Kennedy Discusses Lamar Smith's HR 2164

As to the item from Kris Kobach....I found that to be very informative and the best explanation of what's going on. If people don't understand that....then they have to be brain dead!!


As to Lamar Smith and his bill actions....I hope that is a case of being tricked into something by the CofC without knowing what he was doing. LaRaza, CofC and other liberals/radicals have been lobbying and hounding Obama and Congress (behind closed doors) the last several years. I have always said our state and federal legislators are isolated in their own little political worlds and have no idea what's going on down here on the borders and across the country. This deal with Smith may prove the truth of that point. I am still wondering if Smith had anything to do with writing the bill...or if his staff did it???

Since the legislators have been so bogged down with Obama, the economy and all of the other Obama messes....I believe they may have been leaving too much up to their staff to take care of. I hope this is the case because I don't want to believe that Smith knowingly did this. If he did know what he was doing....then he needs to go in the next election.

Pat K.

Michael in Arizona Discusses Lamar Smith's HR2164

Jean. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to further comment on the subject of the Smith E-verify legislation that he has proposed for passage at the Federal level.


The problem with his Bill as written is as follows:

1. It is not necessary, in the face of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Arizona 2007 E-very legislation. That decision essentially held that any and every State had the legal right to pass E-verify legislation in the form and in the manner that best responds to the needs of the State. In essence, the Court defended the 10th Amendment.

2. The Smith Bill will Federalize the E-verify process and effectively delegitimize what any State may do to control its own intra-State laws as they relate to labor, etc. In other words, the State will have to follow the mandates of the Federal law, otherwise, it will face DOJ scrutiny and potential lawsuits.

3. The fact that the U.S. chamber of commerce had significant input into the smith E-verify Legislation should send an alarm to every anti-illegal alien individual and organization and it should tell you just how much PAC money smith is receiving from the Chamber and from their buddies in business. The Chamber has never supported an Immigration related Bill that it didn't like. In this case, the Smith Bill would nullify any State E-verify laws that intruded upon the Federal law, and that is what the Chamber and its buddies are hoping will happen.

4. Those like Shafly, Tancredo and Kobach have their finger on the pulse of these actions and certainly are in a better position than I to comment on any potential outcomes that would be the product of the Smith Legislation. My comments do mirror a lot of their concerns, but my major argument is that the Smith Legislation will undermine that which the Supreme Court has ruled is the prerogative of the States under the 10th Amendment and We the People under the 9th Amendment.

The adage that if it isn't broken - don't fix it.....definitely applies here. IMO, Smith is pursuing this legislation at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the sole purpose of removing our legal rights under the 9th and the 10th Amendments. His Bill will do nothing more than to nullify these rights and place them solely at the Federal level, where, as in many instances, the Federal jurisdiction has worked against the American people and in support of Big business and Big Labor. The atmosphere at the Federal level, as we all know, is.....even if the law exists, they choose to ignore it. And, if there is no law, then we can make a policy decision to forge one out of nothing.

Thus, our problems, begin, prosper and end at the hands of a government hell bent on undermining the Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Rule of Law. JUST HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO RE-LEARN THAT LESSON?

(...)Does the adage....fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me - ring a bell? Numbers does not have a crystal ball and cannot see the future anymore than anyone else. It has been wrong plenty of times and it is wrong here. The Smith Bill is not necessary. THE SUPREME COURT JUST SAID SO RELATIVE TO THE ARIZONA 2007 E-VERIFY LEGISLATION AND IT REAFFIRMED OUR RIGHTS AND THE STATE'S RIGHTS TO ENACT SUCH LEGISLATION ON A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS.


THE SMITH BILL WILL UNDO THAT DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND IN FAVOR OF THE PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN ORGANIZATIONS WHO ALSO SUPPORT THE SMITH E-VERIFY BILL - COVERTLY.

Glad to hear from you.

Michael

Kris Kobach Discusses Lamar Smith's HR 2164

July 6, 2011 3:30 P.M.


Law and Border

From the July 4, 2011, issue of NR.

On May 26, for the first time in 35 years, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on whether states may take action to stop illegal immigration. In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the Supreme Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 against multiple challenges claiming that it was preempted by federal law. This act requires all employers in the state to use the E-Verify Internet system to check the work authorization of new hires, and it penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens by suspending their business licenses. (E-Verify, run by the federal government, checks data supplied by immigrants against Homeland Security and Social Security records to make sure they are eligible for employment.)

It was a 5–3 decision, with the conservative justices, plus Anthony Kennedy, siding with Arizona. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because the Obama Justice Department had weighed in against Arizona when she was solicitor general.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to take the case and participated in the oral argument on the losing side. The Obama administration has made no secret of its hostility toward Arizona and other states that want to use state powers to restore the rule of law in immigration. The Justice Department’s pending lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070, a 2010 law governing police procedures when officers encounter illegal aliens, is another example of this hostility.

Arizona’s victory in the high court also gave an unmistakable green light to the other states. A week later, the Alabama legislature passed HB 56 — the strongest law against illegal immigration that any state has enacted to date — and on June 9, Gov. Robert Bentley signed it into law. This measure, known as the Beason-Hammon Act after its main sponsors, includes everything that Arizona has done on the subject, plus a good deal more: prohibiting illegal aliens from attending public universities in the state, providing for civil forfeiture of vehicles used to knowingly transport illegal aliens, prohibiting landlords from knowingly harboring illegal aliens in apartments, and requiring public schools to count the number of illegal aliens receiving a free K–12 education at taxpayer expense.

Behind Alabama and Arizona are a growing number of other states that have taken significant steps down the same road, including Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Indiana. And the list of states seeking to deter illegal immigration is sure to grow in the future.

These states are motivated by two powerful forces: public frustration over lax enforcement of federal immigration laws, and the fiscal burden that illegal immigration imposes on taxpayers. The Federation for American Immigration Reform calculates that the net fiscal burden caused by illegal immigration is $100 billion per year for all levels of government combined. That’s a net figure, taking into account any taxes that illegal aliens may pay.

About $80 billion of that total falls at the state and local levels — meaning that state and local governments have to pick up the tab when federal immigration laws go unenforced. The biggest items are free K–12 education for children in illegal-alien households; costs incurred through the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of illegal aliens who commit additional crimes; and medical costs imposed on public budgets by illegal aliens. In effect, the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws is a massive unfunded mandate. And unlike the federal government, nearly all of the states have a constitutional obligation to balance their budgets, so these costs cannot be ignored.

If a state can encourage illegal aliens to go home, however, the fiscal burden can be reduced dramatically. State laws like Alabama’s and Arizona’s are based on the principle of attrition through enforcement: If a state ratchets up the level of enforcement, illegal aliens will weigh the costs and benefits of remaining unlawfully, and will leave. Using calculations from a study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, we can expect that for every illegal-alien-headed household that returns to its country of origin, on average, taxpayers realize a net fiscal benefit of $19,588 per year.

Arizona’s success in encouraging illegal aliens to self-deport has been impressive thus far. Between 2008 and 2010, the population of illegal aliens in the United States decreased by 7 percent, but in Arizona it decreased by 18 percent. This exodus is widely attributed to two law-enforcement efforts: the implementation of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, beginning Jan. 1, 2008, and the contemporaneous enforcement of Arizona’s 2005 anti-smuggling law by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, which contains the majority of Arizona’s population and is the hub of alien-smuggling operations into the United States.

While it is undoubtedly true that some of Arizona’s illegal aliens simply packed their bags and moved to states such as California, where liberal laws welcome them, it is also true that many left the United States altogether. This was dramatically illustrated in early 2008, when legislators from the Mexican border state of Sonora sent a delegation north to Arizona. Their mission? To complain to Arizona officials that the Legal Arizona Workers Act was sending too many Mexican nationals home too quickly, and that Sonora could not handle the burden on its public services and infrastructure.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Whiting did not directly address Arizona’s SB 1070, it greatly boosts the prospects of success not only for that law, but also for immigration-enforcement bills in a number of other states. Realizing this, the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and other open-borders groups launched into damage-control mode in the wake of the decision. They tried to spin the Whiting opinion as an extremely narrow holding that has no bearing on other laws or other states.

This mischaracterization may have gotten a lot of play in press releases and cable-news appearances, but it won’t hold up in court. The Supreme Court’s opinion made clear that state and local governments have a significant role to play in deterring illegal immigration.

The ACLU’s challenge to such laws has rested principally on the concept of “conflict preemption.” This concerns cases in which a state or local law poses an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress’s objectives as spelled out in federal law. If that happens, the state law is invalid.

The problem for the ACLU is that there is no federal law prohibiting states and cities from taking steps to stop illegal immigration. On the contrary, there are numerous federal statutes inviting state assistance in the enforcement of immigration laws. So the ACLU is reduced to arguing that the state and local laws are somehow in “tension” with federal law, even if there is no conflict on the face of the statutes.

The Whiting decision made clear that that argument will no longer fly: “Implied preemption analysis does not justify a ‘free-wheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives’; such an endeavor ‘would undercut the principle that it is Congress rather than the courts that preempts state law.’” And that’s precisely the point. Congress has never acted to prohibit state and local laws that discourage illegal immigration, so the open-borders Left is asking the courts to do it instead.

Their favorite argument to demonstrate “tension” with federal law is to declare that Congress intended for immigration laws to be enforced uniformly across the land. They claim that aggressively enforced state laws in places such as Arizona disrupt this uniformity, and therefore the courts should throw them out. But the Supreme Court emphatically rejected this argument, stating: “Congress expressly preserved the ability of the States to impose their own sanctions through licensing; that — like our federal system in general — necessarily entails the prospect of some departure from homogeneity.”

Perhaps most important, the Court also endorsed the constitutional doctrine of concurrent enforcement, on which Arizona, Alabama, and other states have relied in drafting their laws. If a state prohibits an activity that is already prohibited by federal law, then state and federal law are concurrent and no conflict can exist. The Supreme Court applied this doctrine and observed approvingly that “the Arizona law . . . trace[s] the federal law.”

In particular, the Supreme Court gave Arizona high marks for adopting the definitions and standards of federal law verbatim. “Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law closely tracks [federal statutory] provisions in all material respects. The Arizona law begins by adopting the federal definition of who qualifies as an ‘unauthorized alien.’ . . . Not only that, the Arizona law expressly provides that state investigators must verify the work authorization of an allegedly unauthorized alien with the Federal Government, and ‘shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States.’”

This was by design. The same deference to federal definitions and federal determinations of immigration status also appears in Alabama’s Beason-Hammon Act, Arizona’s SB 1070, Missouri’s illegal-immigration act of 2008, Oklahoma’s illegal-immigration act of 2007, and just about every other properly drafted state or local immigration law on the books. It is therefore highly likely that these laws will withstand any legal challenge in the wake of Whiting.

But perhaps the best indication of how sweeping the Whiting opinion was came eleven days later, when the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Third Circuit in Lozano v. City of Hazleton. In that case, the Third Circuit had struck down a municipal ordinance in Hazleton, Pa., prohibiting the hiring of unauthorized aliens by employers and the harboring of illegal aliens by landlords. The Supreme Court erased the Third Circuit’s decision and directed it to reconsider the case in light of Whiting. Importantly, the Supreme Court remanded the entire decision, not just the employment part, for reconsideration. In other words, although the law at issue in Whiting specifically concerned the employment of unauthorized aliens, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court were applicable to any state or local law concerning illegal immigration.

In summary, the road ahead for state and local laws deterring illegal immigration looks very good — at least in court. Yet some Republicans in Congress seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Treating the states as nothing more than a proving ground for “real” reform at the federal level, they are willing to sell out Arizona and the other states in return for modest improvements to federal law.


Specifically, they have approached the pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce to see whether a deal can now be reached for a bill to mandate E-Verify usage nationwide. The Chamber, long opposed to enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace, has demanded a heavy price in return for its assent — the removal of the states from the field.


H.R. 2164, drafted under the watchful supervision of the Chamber and introduced on June 14 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Tex.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, achieves exactly that. It prohibits the states from suspending the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. In other words, it stabs Arizona in the back right after the state’s victory in the Supreme Court. Nothing would please the Chamber and the Obama administration more.

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 resources 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.



Aliens have self-deported from Arizona not because they think U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will start enforcing federal laws more aggressively, but because they know state and local officials are very serious about enforcing state laws. When Obama’s Department of Homeland Security began halting worksite enforcement raids across the country, Arizona’s employer-sanctions law was kicking in. By the end of 2009, Maricopa County officials had investigated and/or raided more than two dozen businesses suspected of knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. Word gets around very quickly when a law is being enforced, and many illegal aliens left the state on their own initiative. The same will happen in Alabama in September, when that state’s new law goes into effect.



To take the states out of the enforcement game would be the height of foolishness. ICE has a mere 6,000 interior (i.e. non-border) enforcement agents to cover the entire country. In contrast, state and local governments can bring nearly 800,000 law-enforcement officers to bear on the problem. That is why the Chamber of Commerce is so eager to pass Smith’s bill and end the threat of state-level enforcement. That is also why the Obama administration and the ACLU launched a legal jihad against Arizona — to send a message to the other states.



With Whiting, the Supreme Court has dealt a decisive blow to the legal position of the Obama administration and the ACLU. Now is the time for the states to press forward and make additional progress in reducing illegal immigration.



Hopefully, after 2012, a new administration in Washington will be interested in vigorously enforcing immigration laws and will recognize that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to achieve that goal alone. The only way to end illegal immigration is for both the federal government and the states to take to the field, working together to restore the rule of law.



— Kris W. Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, is a co-author of Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 56 and has defended numerous state and local laws concerning illegal immigration in court. This article originally appeared in the July 4, 2011, issue of National Review.

NEWS FROM IRCOT

IRCOT N. TEXAS


immigrationreform@sbcglobal.net

If links do not open, please copy and paste in browser.

* * * *
Happy Birthday America!
* * * *

America is much more than a geographical fact.

It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality. ~Adlai Stevenson

* * * *
TX's Lamar Smith's E-Verify bill

The introduction of Congressman Lamar Smith's E-Verify bill has received endorsements from NumbersUSA and Tom Tancredo and we are glad to have legislation that mandates the use of E-Verify nation-wide. However there are those that see difficulties with this bill. Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, known as the Architect of Arizona's SB 1070 along with Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum have problems with the legislation.

Kris Kobach told Lou Dobbs, Fox Business, that this bill will reverse AZ's victory and will take the states off of the playing field. Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum says this bill must be amended. Please read Phyllis Schlafly's column for her take on this legislation.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/july11/11-07-01.html

Lamar Smith's E-Verify Bill Must Be Amended

Excerpts from article:

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-TX) to introduce H.R.2164 that, 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 preempts 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.

* * *

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-28-2011/rep-smith-introduce-legislation-preventing-obama-administration-offering-administr?jid=961886&lid=9&rid=16826&tid=383158

Rep. Smith to Introduce Legislation Preventing Obama Administration from Offering Administrative Amnesty

posted on NumbersUSA

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is finalizing legislation that would prevent the Obama Administration from offering amnesty to millions of illegal aliens through deferred action or parole. The notion of an administrative amnesty first surfaced through leaked internal memos last year, but a new memo from ICE Director John Morton telling his field staff to use prosecutorial discretion while enforcing federal immigration laws.

Chairman Smith's HALT (Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation) Act would prevent the Obama Administration from. . .

* * *
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IRCOT - Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas
4509 Hudson Bend RD
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78734
www.ircot.com/donate

(IRCOT is a 501(c)(4) Texas Non-Profit Corporation)
* * *
DONATE TO TEXAS LEGAL FOUNDATION, and help us win the lawsuit against in-state tuition for illegal alien students. http://texaslegalfoundation.org/

Please make your check payable to "Texas Legal Foundation" noting your donation is for the IRCOT lawsuit. Send to Texas Legal Foundation, P.O. Box 926, Austin, Texas 78767

The Texas Legal Foundation is a Texas nonprofit corporation. However, in order to maximize its independence, TLF has chosen not to seek tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, contributions to TLF are not tax deductible