The cost of deportation will require a massive new FEDERAL TAX to pay for the enormous cost.

[Union Yes]

I'm as anti-deportation as they come. After reading the many OP's on DU regarding immigration, it's a pretty safe assumption that most/almost all of DU has the same/similar view. DU'ers have many reasons for opposing Arizona's new racist law. Most feel it's racist, discriminatory, hateful, an embarrassment to our nation etc.

Sadly, it appears that the rest of America supports AZ's new law and also supports deportation. Based in part on polling that many of us have read right here on DU. MSNBC, CNN and many other media outlets, both TV and net, have also reported on these polls.

PREDICT THE COST OF DEPORTING 11 MILLION 'ILLEGAL' IMMIGRANTS.

Nationwide, it would require an army of law enforcement officials to arrest, detain, deport 11 MILLION people.

The cost of pursuit, arrest, detention of 11 million. Who wants to put a price tag on that?

Then, there will be the enormous cost of deportation court battles when so-called 'illegals' fight their deportations in court.

Civil rights issues will arise. The cost of potential civil rights violations stemming from potential law suits involving the violation of civil rights.

Wrap the cost of all that up in one bundle.
I'll guess it would cost $1 TRILLION+ to deport 11 million people.

It's time for the Federal Government to make American citizens aware of the enormous cost of deportation. It's time for the WH to address the nation on this issue. The only way we could ever afford to pay for deportation is with a massive new..

Deportation Tax

The Fed Gov needs to remind Americans that if the citizens really want to demand that government deport so-called 'illegals' that the American people will have to pay a TAX in order to fund the enormous cost of a massive new BIG GOVERNMENT policy of pursuit, arrest, detention, legal battles, civil court battles, civil rights battles, and finally deportation.

Those who support the racist policy of deportation- BE WILLING TO BE TAXED TO PAY FOR THE ENORMOUS COST OF DEPORTATION.

Racism ain't free.

Racism is enormously expensive.

At least be willing to pay for the cost of a racist, massive big government policy of deportation.

Put your money where your mouth is.
..............................................................................................

I will never again call a human being 'illegal' for immigrating to America.

Our corporate overlords opened our borders under Reagan. They wanted to import slave-labor.

Instead, they got human beings.

Naturalize them. People that want to be tax paying American citizens should never be considered illegal.

Warcriminals are illegal human beings. Immigrants aren't.

[Chulanowa]

1. "I will never again call a human being 'illegal' for immigrating to America."

And I salute you for it. Seriously, I expect several DU'ers will be here shortly to set your curlies on fire for saying that, but not me.

Bravo

[Union Yes]

5. Thanks!

:fistbump:

:patriot:

[LiberalFighter]

2. Hmmm maybe the federal government should allow states to take control

provided they abide by fed regs and it will require raising state taxes to pay for enforcement.

[Confusious]

3. Can you be racist against the canadians and irish

who make up a portion of those illegals?

[EFerrari]

9. Of course. Maybe you're too young to remember

but our first Irish Catholic president's victory was in part a victory against discrimination.

[Confusious]

25. If you're Irish, can you be a racist against Irish?

[EFerrari]

30. Yes but we'd probably call it self loathing.n/t

[guitar man]

67. sure you can

Alright, alright. We'll take the n*****s and the c****s...But we'll be DAMNED if we take the Irish!

Funny line from Blazing Saddles, but had a ring of truth to it without a doubt....

[EFerrari]

4. What most people don't understand

is that our immigration policy has been so out of joint for so long, that if you decide deportation is the answer, you are breaking up families because maybe Dad was sponsored but not Mom. You are shattering families. That's what deportation means.

[Union Yes]

6. So very true!

:fistbump:

[Jkid]

36. In some cases American-born children may be forced to go with the deportees

These children, who have been culturally naturalized in America, will be forced to spend possibly the rest of their lives in a coutnry they do not speak the language of or the cultural traditions of.

[LostInAnomie]

7. Arrest and fine those that hire them and the illegal immigrants will leave on their own.

If they can't find work, they will leave. Won't cost us a thing.

[The Northerner]

11. +1

[William Z. Foster]

15. "they??"

"They" will leave?

Employers cannot legally discriminate against "suspected illegals" - and just what might be the basis for such suspicions, hmmm? - nor can they investigate the backgrounds of employees sufficient to determine their status with certainty within the law, nor do I think any of us would want employers to be acting as de facto agents of law enforcement like that, nor would we want to live in the sort of climate that would be required for your brilliant little plan to have any hope of success at getting rid of "them." Won't cost "us" a thing you say? Keep dreaming. You have no idea what the costs of your thinking are going to be.

Your all calling for suspicion of any and all brown people, although you are couching it is reasonable sounding language. That is probably worse than out and out overt racism.

It is just sickening to read the things that people are posting on this subject, just sickening. Arrogant, cruel, callous and ignorant. Unbelievable.

[Desertrose]

16. +1

"they".

*sigh*

[William Z. Foster]

18. "we know who they are"

We know who they are (how exactly?) and we know what they are re doing (they are by definition illegal and alien) and we need to solve the problem that their presence is for us (which is not racism, oh, no, how dare you accuse us of that?) so let's find the easiest and cheapest way to get rid of them (not that it is merely their presence we have a problem with, oh, no, rather it is that they are illegal aliens, and it is not that we are trying to get rid of anyone, no, we just want to get rid of them) and then pat ourselves on the backs for being so clever.

Horrific, just horrific. People seem to have no shame whatsoever about expressing these things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Jesus. The hanky-wringing is getting a little old.

The vapors must be a debilitating ailment.

They know because the SSA sends them a letter. :eyes:

[William Z. Foster]

46. no need for insults

I have patiently responded to each and every point you have made.

If you have an argument, make it. Resorting to insults suggests that you have exhausted your arguments and are now merely taking pot shots. That weakens your case.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. I haven't exhausted my arguments, you simply ignored them.

The "horrific", "alarming", "disgusting", "sickening", (insert hyperbole here) truth is that employers know who "they" (illegal workers) are because the SSA sends them a letter telling them so.

[William Z. Foster]

84. I have patiently addressed all of your points

As I pointed out, the AFL-CIO went to court to get an injunction against the "no match" program and succeeded, so, no, employers do not know people's status. There are good reasons for not relying on SSA for this, as I have explained and supported, and there are good reasons for not demanding that employers act as de facto agents for law enforcement. But you know better. You know there are no civil rights issues, you know exactly what the problem is, you know what the solution is, and you know that this would be easy to implement.

I have also suggested ways to resolve the problem that is consistent with the Bill of Rights and human rights in general and does not involve draconian punishment and harassment. All of your arguments, whether they are accurate or not, are in support and defense of a draconian punishment and harassment approach. That means that there are legitimate objections to your arguments, even if they were accurate.

Are you, or are you not open to discussing any way to define the problem other than as the difficult of the workers, and any approach to the problem other than arrests, round-ups, detention, and deportation. Yes or no? If you are not, then let's make that the basis of the discussion and you can explain for all of us exactly how your method would be carried out, and how it would be consistent with the Constitution. If you have such a proposal, I may well agree with you and support it. I don't think any such thing exists. Either you do, or you don't care that there is no way to actually carry out what you ant to see happen that is consistent with the principles of human rights.

So, how do we "get rid of them," and how do we do that without trampling on any and all consideration for human rights?

Did you see John Stewart last night, by the way? I rarely watch it, but they had a great little segment on all of the points you keep raising. Their roving reporter went out hunting for "illegal immigrants," asking people how they knew who was "illegal," and then demanding papers from them.

But you know who they are, yes? They are your friends, the friends you use to "prove" what "they" are all like and what they are doing? Did you know that you could be guilty of a felony for not turning your friends in? Or maybe you have.

[madmax]

20. Yes, you know

'those' people.

[LostInAnomie]

23. Bullshit.

If they (illegal immigrants) cannot provide the verifiable documentation that everyone has to provide when they are hired, or if the documentation looks suspicious it is perfectly legal to discriminate against them (illegal immigrants).

Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer's work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual's accent or foreign appearance.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/immigration_hiring_law_excerpts_from_us_code.htm


You can cry racism all you want, but it doesn't change the simple fact that illegal immigrants are here illegally. If the federal government would actually start enforcing the laws on the books employers would quit hiring illegal immigrants. Without jobs, they would leave and it would cost us nothing.

[William Z. Foster]

31. the Enabling Act

Read that law and then read some history and then think about it.

Your defense of the position makes it even more disturbing.

This is really alarming, folks.

[LostInAnomie]

34. Right... enforcing laws forbidding the hiring of illegal immigrants equates to the Nazis.

:eyes:

Hysterics about racism, Nazis, and "disturbing tones" aside, the US has the right to define its borders and the qualifications for citizenship. It also has the right to enforce its own laws over the hiring of illegal immigrants. If someone crossed the border illegally, overstayed their visa, etc., no matter how good their intentions, they are here illegally and are breaking the law.

Enforce laws against hiring them and they will leave.

[William Z. Foster]

43. everything the Germans did in the 30's and 40's was legal

Is there any law that you would not support? How about the Patriot Act, for example?

This is what is reminiscent of a police state:

* assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

[LostInAnomie]

45. So, do you not think the US should have the right to define its borders or citizenship?

[William Z. Foster]

47. correct

Read the founding documents. Governments don't have rights, our system restricts government, and the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people from arbitrary authority.

Borders are defined by whomever has power. It has nothing to do with rights.

If the US government has a right to put borders through tribal lands of indigenous people, then logically the people already there had a superior right since they had already define the border.

No, the government does have the right to define citizenship. The people have a right to citizenship, and then have the right to define the government.

You are asking "do the most powerful have the right to get their way?" I say "no!" - that is the opposite of rights. the concept of rights exists as a balance to might, not as a rubber stamp for it. As the saying goes, "might does not make right."

[LostInAnomie]

50. Have even taken a cursory glance at the Constitution?

The whole thing is literally a listing of the powers the government has, including the 14th Amendment which defines citizenship.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If you don't meet that description you are an illegal immigrant and have no right to citizenship. What you are essentially calling for is some kind of half thought out global capitalism anarchy where governments have no powers to define their borders and citizenship is based on wherever you happen to be at the moment.

[William Z. Foster]

54. you are kidding

That is it?

You have turned the principles the country was founded on upside down. You take that one clause, and then negate the entire concept of self-government. "Until and unless you meet the requirements of the authorities, you have no rights, and the authorities will decide on that." That is the opposite of what the founding documents say.

Those working here and living here at the time the document was written, a large percentage of them immigrants including people like Thomas Paine, were presumed to have a right to be here. The founding documents restricted the government from interfering with people or impeding them - limited and defined government power, did not limit and define the power or freedom that everyday people had.

That clause does NOT say that everything else in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and all law is null and void for all whom it may apply to. "Subject to the jurisdiction of" applies to all immigrants and "naturalized" is easy enough to handle. Nothing in that clause places restrictions on who can and who cannot be "naturalized."

So naturalize the immigrants. Problem solved. In the meantime, there is nothing in the Constitution that justifies suspending civil liberties for anyone.

The Constitution does not make people illegal, it makes them legal. It does not give the government power over everyday people, it gives every day people protections from and power over the government. Don't they teach these basic concepts in middle school civics class anymore? How can you call for denying others from becoming Americans, without understanding what being an American even means?

We already have global Capitalism - wealthy people are free to cross borders and pursue profits, cheap labor, and resources. Giving Labor - poor working people - the same freedom dos not cause "some kind of half thought out global capitalism anarchy" - we already have that - it levels the playing field and leads away from "global capitalism anarchy" by giving the working class more freedom and power.

[LostInAnomie]

64. Hahaha... Seriously, what do you think the Constitution says and who do you think the founders were?

The founders weren't even close to the open border, citizenship for everyone anarchists you seem to think they were. They absolutely were for defined borders. Hell, a huge portion of them thought of their state as a quasi-nation. They absolutely didn't believe that everyone within the borders of the US had all the rights listed in the Constitution (i.e. blacks, women, poor people, etc.). We are actually much more permissible now than the founders ever would have been.

The Constitution absolutely does give the government the power to amend the Constitution. Hence, the 14th Amendment that absolutely does define citizenship. The naturalization process is one that is determined by elected officials based on the will of the people.

By having a definition of citizenship and by giving the government the ability to write laws the Constitution does allow the government to declare that people are here illegally. There is no way around that. If they have not gone through the naturalization process they are here illegally.

It's laughable to think that allowing more and more people to enter the country is somehow going to be "empowering" to working people. How is a race to the bottom empowering to anyone except the lovers of cheap labor?

[William Z. Foster]

65. of course

I wouldn't argue otherwise about the founders. Did I say they were open border anarchists? And of course they "didn't believe that everyone within the borders of the US had all the rights listed in the Constitution." It is a ongoing battle for human rights and for the well being of the working class, as I said.

I did not claim that the Constitution could not be amended.

I agree that the "naturalization process is one that is determined by elected officials based on the will of the people." That is why we are debating this - to shape public opinion, the will of the people. However, you contradict yourself - first saying the the government has rights, and then saying the will of the people through elected representatives.

The government officials can investigate documentation violations in regards to immigration. No problem. We are talking about extra-Constitutional actions and violations of human rights by the government - suspension of Habeas Corpus, denial of due process, shredding of the protections encoded in the Bill of Rights. That is the basis for my entire argument.

So, workers are the cause of cheap labor? That is your claim, and I am asking you to support that assertion. Workers should not go somewhere, because they then will be exploited, and the solution to that is to restrict the workers? You said that too many workers going to an area causes "a race to the bottom empowering to anyone except the lovers of cheap labor?" How does workers moving to higher wages cause a race to the bottom or promote cheap labor? How does workers being kept from moving to better opportunities prevent cheap labor? You are making the assertion - support it if you can.

By your logic, do consumers looking for and buying things at lower prices cause prices to go up? If more consumers go to a store, does that cause prices to go up? If workers (who are also consumers) moving to places with higher wages causes wages to fall, then consumers (who are also workers) going to places with lower prices should cause prices to go up.

How come the owners get to buy low and sell dear, and workers can not? Owners try to depress wages and increase prices - that is how they make profits. Workers try to increase their wages and buy things for less - that is how we survive.

[William Z. Foster]

66. let's walk through this

Let's walk through this, for the benefit of those reading this thread if nothing else.

You say that workers moving toward higher wages (that is why people immigrate, along with getting an education for their children and escaping tyranny) causes wages to fall.

If workers leave Mexico, for example, where they are paid $5 a day, to get a $15 an hour job here, then that means there are fewer people available to the corporations to hire at $5 a day. That means that there is less pressure on workers here to compete with $5 a day labor there. If there are fewer $5 a day workers, and more $15 an hour workers, the price of workers for the corporations has gone up and the corporations are less likely to move plants to Mexico - ergo, more jobs here and higher wages overall.

Workers moving toward higher wages causes wages to go up. If workers are not free to move to higher wages, that causes wages to stagnate. If the corporations are free to move manufacturing to where there is cheaper labor, that causes all wages, and the number of jobs here, to decrease.

Management controls all of this, the owners, and they operate to depress our wages, all wages, without regard to any borders. Workers respond to it - by migrating to where wages are higher, both within a country and across borders. Workers are not causing it, they are responding to it, they are resisting it.

When we can be replaced by cheap foreign labor in other countries, we are less valuable to the corporations, When we are less valuable to them - when they can get what we offer cheaper elsewhere - they do not need to pay us as much.

Are workers trying to move to where wages are higher, yes or no?

Are owners trying to move jobs to where wages are lower, yes or not?

[William Z. Foster]

68. no rebuttal

There is no rebuttal for this, is there?

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. If an employer withholds taxes on a bogus SSN, they get no-match letter..

That letter almost always means that their new employee is illegal.

Enforcement is lax, and the illegal worker simply gets a new bogus ssn.

It would cost little to set up a toll free hotline at the social security administration. "I have a job applicant SSN xxx-xxx-xxxx here, named Joe E. Can you validate that info?"

From our perspective, there's no good reason to wait until several months later.

[William Z. Foster]

51. massive resistance to that

There was massive resistance to the "no match" policy nonsense - for good reason - and after being pursued by the Bush administration for a while it was abandoned.

I am in favor of issuing a work card at the border to those seeking work and for getting them into the system. Using Social Security to monitor all of us - no one should support that.

Immigration Debate: Court Puts "No-Match" Letters on Hold; First Step in Protecting Workers

Yesterday a San Francisco federal judge extended for 10 days a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocks the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from using backlogged and error-prone social security records to enforce immigration law. Before October 10, the judge will rule on whether or not to permanently stop the Social Security Administration (SSA) from sending "no match" notices to approximately 140,000 employers across the country.

The new social security "no match" regulations may be "tough" enforcement, but they're not smart enforcement. Sending out "no match" letters based on a backlogged system full of discrepancies will lead to unfair firings of legal workers, wrongful detention, and a chaotic churning of workers across industries.

The Social Security administration's own internal reports suggest that hundreds of thousands of the "no match" letters will be incorrect. That means that thousands of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents will be forced to run the Social Security Administration's bureaucratic gauntlet in order to keep their jobs. In most cases, employers aren't likely to wait out the red tape to re-verify a worker--employers will fire first and only the most well connected workers will be able to ask questions later.

This unwise, piecemeal approach will lead to chaos--not order--and untold misery for many our nation's hardest, most underpaid workers. If left unchecked, "no match" regulations will push all low-wage workers deeper into the shadows, breed division, and benefit the most unscrupulous, off-the-books employers.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/64183/

AFL-CIO v. Chertoff

AFL-CIO, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center Challenge New Homeland Security Rule

October 7, 2009

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the Central Labor Council of Alameda County along with other local labor movements filed a lawsuit charging that a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule will threaten jobs of U.S. citizens and other legally authorized workers simply because of errors in the government's inaccurate social security earnings databases. The rule violates workers' rights and imposes burdensome obligations on employers who receive Social Security Administration (SSA) "no-match" letters that inform an employer of alleged discrepancies between employee records and the SSA database.

Under the new rule, many U.S. citizens and legally authorized workers could be required to be terminated if their erroneous SSA records are not fixed within 90 days of an SSA "no-match" letter being sent to an employer.

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/afl-cio-v-chertoff

Change Immigrants and Labor Can Believe In

The Obama administration should embrace progressive tactics to protect human and workplace rights.

The Smithfield plant, the largest of its kind in the world, employs 5,000 people, about half of them immigrants. No one can say for sure how many lacked immigration papers, but as in most meatpacking plants, many undoubtedly did. Despite their status, during the previous year those workers walked out twice to join immigrants' rights marches. They even shut down production lines over the high accident rate. The fear created by the no-match check was an easy way to cut that activism short.

For the past two decades employers have threatened, and often implemented, similar terminations in workplace after workplace. At the Woodfin Suites in Emeryville, California, the hotel threatened no-match firings after workers began demanding compliance with the city's living-wage law. At the Cintas Laundry chain, plant managers fired hundreds of employees last year in no-match checks during UNITE HERE's national organizing drive. The list goes on and on.

The Bush Administration says that vastly increased checks will become a fact of life in every US workplace. On August 10, Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff told reporters that SSA would send letters to 160,000 employers on September 4, listing all workers whose numbers don't jibe. After a ninety-day grace period, the Administration will require employers to discharge those whose numbers are still in question. Those letters would list the names of millions of workers.

Implementation of the new regulation was halted on August 31, however, after unions filed suit against it. In response to a legal challenge by two Bay Area labor councils in Alameda and San Francisco Counties, the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, the national AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, US District Judge Maxine Chesney issued a temporary restraining order blocking it. The TRO stopped Social Security from sending letters on September 4.

The suit charges that the new Bush rule will threaten jobs of US citizens and legal residents because of errors in the government's database, and therefore would violate workers' rights and impose burdensome obligations on employers. According to the SSA Inspector General, 12.7 million of the 17.8 million discrepancies belong to US citizens. A series of hearings will now be held to determine whether the order should be made permanent.

The plaintiffs filed suit because of the staggering scope of Chertoff's order. About 12 million people living in the United States have no legal immigration status. Most of them work. In order to get hired, they have to present a Social Security number to their employer. Some use invented numbers, while others borrow existing numbers that belong to someone else. This causes no harm to others--if anything, it subsidizes the Social Security fund, since undocumented workers can't claim benefits, although they're paying deductions like everyone else.

Yet if the Chertoff regulation is implemented as announced, as many as 9 million people will lose their jobs at the end of this year.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:06Q9hZK3FqYJ:www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/bacon+no+match+immigrants&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[treestar]

73. That's not so

It may not mean the person is illegally here. There are problems with the no-match letters.

It is also putting the burden for enforcement on employers, though to DU every employer is huge and has piles of money around.

Pass an enforceable law and make the federal government enforce it. In this country there is no easy way.

We should just give them all visas so they can contribute to the tax base and compete on equal terms with US citizens. The way we do things now, illegals are more attractive to some employers since they "can" work for less and without protections.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. We need to be attacking this on the demand front as well

[William Z. Foster]

32. attack?

Why do "we" need to be "attacking" anything or anyone?

Are we in the midst of a population collectively going mad?

[Johonny]

40. you're right we should do nothing

we should continue to have an ever growing indentured servitude class that pays taxes, but can't vote and gets wages often at criminally low levels. Because yeah there is no problems associated with illegal immigration.

[William Z. Foster]

49. of course not

Amnesty solves those issues.

[Johonny]

38. they might not leave

I mean it requires means to leave. They may just find more illegal means to make money. It's not as if the US is not without illegal means to make money. The problem with immigration is that is a two fold problem. What do you do with some 15 million people already here and what do you do to prohibit further illegal immigration. I think actual enforcement of our employment laws will certainly help stem the illegal immigration problem. But will not likely cause many people already here to leave, since it's doubtful they have to means to leave nor is the cost of moving 15 million people a likely to be attractive. Thus the people that are here now need to be placed into some type of system. I don't think the crime rate is likely to look very attractive if suddenly we have 15 million people with no legal means of employment. I think the duel nature of the problem means no side wants to attack this issue. No party wants to give the people here anything, nor do they want to stand up to corporations that hire these illegals. Thus I see the problem only getting worse.

[William Z. Foster]

41. of course

The anti-immigrant hysteria is driving people underground and making them more easily exploited. That negatively impacts all of us, immigrant or not.

The corporations are treating immigrants no differently than any workers - get the most work out of us at the lowest possible cost. "Going after corporations for hiring illegals" is illogical. We don't go after corporations for anything. Corporations are exploiting all of us as workers, anyway and anywhere they can. The police state that would be required to "solve" this "problem" of who does and who does not have a right to work would have terrible negative consequences for all workers and give management and law enforcement power that is at least theoretically is precluded by the Constitution, not to mention any commitment to fundamental human rights.

Do people really want to be able to work only with the permission of police agencies, and to have every employer become a de facto agent for law enforcement? That is the only way to determine who "is" legal and illegal.

Keeping people in legal limbo is driving down wages.

Sending people back home will drive down wages (less obvious, because it is one step removed. But if you are doing a job here that can be outsourced at a tenth of the wage in another country, your wages have been effectively depressed much more so than if the person doing your job in the other country came here and did it.)

Amnesty is the fix for both problems - directly depressed wages here, and indirectly depressed wages from outsourcing.

[dkf]

8. If cost were the main factor we would get rid of the drug laws first.

It also costs a lot more to keep a person in jail than they could ever steal. I guess that doesn't make sense either. Generally law enforcement simply isn't a money maker.

Speeding tickets on the other hand are a goldmine.

[EFerrari]

10. A money maker for whom? The prison lobby is the biggest one in CA.

You bet putting people in prison is a money maker now.

[dkf]

12. Well then arresting 11 million is a slam dunk

[EFerrari]

13. I have to say that your lack of empathy for working people that you reduce to a number

is the most repulsive thing I've read here in a very long time.

[dkf]

14. Just making the obvious counterpoint to your comment.

Sarcasm you know. And while I may have sympathy that does not fix the problem. I know too many people who have done it the right way who I respect and admire. It's not impossible, especially if you have family here legally.

In fact until this topic came up I never realized how many of my friends aren't born and bred in the US. Funny that right? If they told me they were here illegally my advice would be to get it fixed now or go home and try to figure it out from there. It would be like any legal issue that comes up. I don't have much patience with blatant lawbreaking in any shape or form.

[William Z. Foster]

17. disgusting

Truly disgusting. Your assumption that immigrants are not trying to "get it fixed now" is false, your assumption that people with documentation issues do not have family here legally or otherwise would have an "especially" easier time is also false, your advice to "go home and try to figure it out from there" is cruel and ignorant, and your characterization of those with documentation problems as "blatant lawbreakers" is inaccurate and authoritarian.

One of two things must be true, from what you have said. Either immigrants from south of the border are having an especially difficult time getting their status clarified, or else as a group they are law breakers or otherwise lacking in moral character or motivation. The first is the truth about the situation, the second is blatant and poisonous racism, or nothing is.

Shameful, truly shameful.

[madmax]

21. There are options that would not require

mass deportation or other odious 'fixes'.

Congressman Gutierrez spoke of this yesterday on a cable program. Need more information.
http://luisgutierrez.house.gov/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/us/politics/16immig.html

[dkf]

22. My entire experience with immigrants doesn't include a single person south of the border

They are all from Asia so that is my vantage point.

I would expect any of my friends to adhere to the law. It's too bad that respecting laws is seen as cruel and unusual punishment or some such thing.

Also it is not like these laws didn't exist prior to their coming over. They knew full well that they had no right to be here nor to stay here. What is unfair if everything was known from the beginning. It's not even like they were tricked with fine print. Why did they create a family that odds said would be torn apart? All this time they have been playing with fate. And if you tell me they expected amnesty because Reagan did it then you have acknowledged amnesty does not work.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

42. It's a human right to be able to cross any border you choose to without any authorization necessary

Are you for real?

[William Z. Foster]

44. yes

Yes. I didn't say that, but I would. And yes, I am for real.

Human beings are to be presumed innocent. Borders are not cause for suspension of human rights, or contradicting our own Bill of Rights. The very purpose of government is to protect human rights, according to the supreme law of our own country, the law that legitimatizes all other laws and without which they have no authority.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

It does not say:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are two classes of people; Americans and illegals..."

"That to prevent the exercise of rights by some, governments are instituted among men to secure borders..."

[dkf]

53. Deluded. If we had open borders everyone would come here.

We dont have enough water for California as it is. Our schools would be flooded and our social safety net would collapse for immigrants and us born alike.

Oh but you can always tax the rich.

[William Z. Foster]

55. the shortages

The various shortages are caused by privatization and corporate profiteering.

The safety net has been destroyed by the right wingers, not workers. Ironically, 20 million people paying in to Social Security right now and not getting anything back may well be keeping it afloat. So much for immigrants collapsing the social safety net. People are coming here for work. As with so many of the anti-immigrant zealots, you contradict yourself. People can't both be coming here taking away jobs and collapsing the social safety net.

The Rush-Bagot treaty created an open border with Canada - at that time a hostile country - that worked for almost 200 years until the Bush administration ended that. Open borders are safer. Open borders do not cause any "flood" - good grief, these are the same arguments used against the Chinese and other immigrants in a presumably much less progressive era.

I will most definitely say tax the rich. What say you? Are you opposed to that as well?

[dkf]

56. If we announced open borders tomorrow you can just fly in from whereever you are

And come live here forever do you think we could handle it?

[William Z. Foster]

59. the ever evolving arguments

Depends upon who you mean by "we." I think that for most of us, a massive influx of immigrants would make things dramatically better.

If by "we" you mean the ruling class and their various sycophants and mouthpieces from the white collar managerial class, then could "we" handle "them?" LOL!! That isn't the issue. Can they handle us? "We" are causing the problems around the world. "We" are the ones that need to change. If that is the "we" that you are talking about.

But if by "we" you mean the working class, the people who are working class and who know it, then we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Society is collapsing. The wealthy are withdrawing into gated communities, hoping to escape. The fate of the planet and the fate of the human race hang in the balance now. We need all the help we can get. That help is not going to come from us here, because the intellectuals have for the most part all been completely brainwashed, are complacent and arrogant and selfish and anti-social and have been bought off, so the working class is decapitated. People cannot help us from other countries, because the US military will invade them and bomb the hell out of them if they resist global capitalism.

So we need help here, of the human race is to survive. That can only come from immigrants, working class immigrants, not the sons and daughters of the aristocracy from other countries (who are able to get in fairly easily).

Not only can we "handle" an influx of immigrants, out very survival depends upon it. "We" the working class, not "we" the aristocracy and owners and their white collar spokespeople and agents.

[dkf]

61. We means the United States of America.

You think we should allow anyone and everyone in immediately because it is a human right. I'm trying to show you how ridiculous that is and it is impossible for us to handle.

[William Z. Foster]

62. that can mean one of two things

"The United States of America" can mean one of two things. Most people posting here are fairly upscale, and when they talk about "America" they mean the upper class, when thy talk about "the "history of America" they mean the history of the ruling class, when they talk about what "we" are doing - invading Iraq or whatever - they mean what the rulers are doing. By using the pronoun "we" when they are talking about the ruling class, they inadvertently betray were their loyalties and sympathies are.

What is it that you imagine would be at risk from the feared "flood" of people coming here? What is the fear? What are you worried about?

[treestar]

80. We did fine before

And didn't have a huge "problem" of illegal aliens.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Please provide a citation for 20 million. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

69. it's a guesstimate

We don't know how many people are outside of the system. They are outside of the system. We do know this - they virtually all want to be in the system. But you don't want them in the system. So they remain outside of the system. Which you then say makes them "illegal." Then you further say that because they are "illegal," drastic massive police action is justified, no matter what the cost, no matter what it does to the working class, the Bill of Rights, and civil liberties. So we all must now be prepared to be called upon to prove that we have a right to exist on demand from law enforcement, lest we be seen as "illegal," all so you can catch your Mexicans and hurt them.

How many people do YOU think are outside of the system? Oh, that's right. We can't know, because you and others don't want them in the system. Which makes them "illegal." And making them "illegal" by refusing to allow them into the system is justified, you say, because they are "illegal."

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Estimates suggest 7 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

At the time the story was written, there were 12 million illegal aliens in the country. This means that the other 5 million were either working in the cash economy or not working.

Today, there are 10 million because 20% have returned home. The belief that they want to be in the system is a stereotype. The ones I've known wanted to save up enough cash (by working for cash, either in construction or the woods) so they can "live like kings" when they return home.

[William Z. Foster]

72. "live like kings" ???

You have got to be kidding. The "ones I've known"?

The "belief" that people want to be legal is a "stereotype?"

5 million not working, off the books and out of the system, eh? How do you or anyone know the number, then?

This most recent post has destroyed any and all possible credibility for your argument. I just can't believe I am reading things like this here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. Don't let me interrupt your garment-rending.

As fact-averse as you appear to be, I'm surprised you're reading it too.

Yes. The belief that illegal aliens all, or even mostly, plan to stay here is a stereotype. Most of the ones I've known (a nontrivial number) are working in the US to save money for some financial goal back home (buy a house, go into business, etc.) and they have all expressed a strong preference of working for cash.

And yes, "live like kings" is his words.

[William Z. Foster]

83. who knows?

I am not adverse to your "facts" - perhaps someone you know did say they wanted to "live like a king" and perhaps that person is an immigrant and perhaps they are undocumented. So what?

I did not say that most immigrants "plan to stay here" did I? I said most wanted to be legal, to be in the system.

"They all have expressed a strong preference of working for cash." Well, we all know how "they" are. LOL. You just keep coming up with them, don't you?

WTF?

So people are working, saving money, have plans, are attached to the place they are from, would rather not pay taxes? That cover just about everyone. What does this have to do with immigration?

There is an awful lot of projection going on in these ant-immigrant obsessions. Any and all bad things that any people ever did anywhere are projected onto the group selected to be the scapegoat. Even things that are not bad - like working, or having plans - are to be viewed with suspicion when it is "them" doing those things.

"OMG!!! They are trying to make money!!! They have plans for their lives!!! They miss home!!!" Devious bastards! Who do they think they are fooling? Round them up!

[treestar]

79. No, everyone would not

Like in the 19th century, people would come because there was opportunity. If there was none, they would not come. Look at immigration statistics. They went down during the Depression. Naturally. In the modern era, information about where people are needed would be even more accurate.

[treestar]

78. You may expect it, but from our southern border, they just don't

They sneak in dangerously, to get low level jobs, because that is better than what they could do in Mexico, etc. You'd do it too in their position. Even being illegally here, with all the threats of that, is worth it to them.

They are not coming illegally to be mean to you or because they want to flout the law - they are trying to survive.

You make it sound like they could obey this law and don't just to be rude and just to flout our laws.

[treestar]

77. You're not aware of the laws

There is no way to fix it for most. People are here illegally because there is no way to be legal. It's very restricted now. You can't just go home and fix it from there.

Your friends are proof of nothing; they can't be a representative sample.

[JonLP24]

29. I agree

Get rid of the drug laws or change them up drastically where treatment rather than punishment is the focus.

[jbnow]

19. That doesn't include the lost billions in FICA

payments going into social security and Medicare funds that the illegal workers pay... but never collect on of course. Very handy benefit of people using false social security numbers...they help pay the benefits of all the "real" Americans who are bitching about them.

Not trying to make it sound simple. Employers do use these workers in ways that bring down wages for everyone...
but odd how rarely the billions they pay in that we keep gets mentioned.
We'd miss it.

[JDPriestly]

24. True. Think of it. The courts, the lawyers, the jail and prison expenses.

You can't deport a citizen just because they jaywalked or looked a little drunk. Separating citizens from non-citizens, residents from non-residents is a lot more complicated than some people realize -- and a lot more expensive.

On the other hand, each nation has the right and the responsibility for determining who is and may be in the country. That's part of what being a nation is -- having a nationality -- belonging -- being in the country legally.

In Europe, you used to have to register with the police when you got an apartment. When we checked into hotels in Europe, our information was shared with the police. At least that was always our understanding. The U.S. is more lax about these things. We respect privacy more than a lot of other countries. But we do have to have clarity about immigration and legal v. illegal residency.

I would suggest requiring employers to pay the repatriation, legal and court costs of people they hire -- whether they hire them on a day-labor or regular employment basis.

At this time, if a legal resident is picked up and convicted of a crime, deportation often results. I suspect that officers check immigration status when they stop people more often than is generally believed. That is why so many people are claiming that the Arizona law doesn't change anything. If you are stopped, you can be asked to identify yourself. And if the officer thinks you are an illegal alien, you could be reported to immigration. It gets messy after that. This is not all that new. There may be aspects of the law that change the status quo. But an illegal immigrant stopped for a minor traffic violation may end up being deported. There is nothing new about that.

The secret is to charge the employer for the costs of the deportation. That would stop the exploitation of illegal immigrants by employers and encourage would-be immigrants to wait their turn.

Remember, every immigrant who comes in without a proper visa deprives a potential patient, law-abiding immigrant of the opportunity to enter legally. Why should illegal immigrants get a preference over those who wait their turn?

[treestar]

81. It's not a matter of just waiting one's turn

There's no line for these immigrants to get into. That's why the come illegally.

Most of the legals are just lucky - related to the right people, have the right job.

[Hannah Bell]

27. already paying for it, already deporting:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for enforcing the nation's immigration and customs laws. ICE has more than 19,000 employees working in 400 offices in the U.S. and around the world.

Our homeland security mission is carried out by a wide variety of law enforcement, intelligence and mission support professionals — all of whom have the opportunity to contribute to the safety and security of our country.

In addition to the core law enforcement occupations, there are also a wide range of professional and administrative functions that support the ICE mission.

http://www.ice.gov/careers/

19,000 employees; apple computer only has 34,000.

[pampango]

28. Agree with you (and organized labor and the Progressive Caucus) that legalization is part

of the immigration reform solution.

Short of building a 2,000 mile long "Berlin Wall" on our southern border (and backing it up with mines and troops that are willing to shoot like the "real" Berlin Wall) there is no way that militarizing the border (another "War" this time on illegal immigration) will accomplish anything other than republican political ambitions. "Border security" like "safety from terrorism" is an elusive yet politically powerful mantra. It can be used to scare people (it's a "war" after all so there must be an "invasion") to get them to spend more money on military toys and give up some more of their rights - a republican wet dream.

"Illegal immigrants" encompasses many different types of people. From the young man who has lived his whole life in Mexico and is apprehended shortly after he first sets foot on US soil to someone who has lived in the US for many years with an American spouse and/or American children. I am not surprised that republicans will say that we should deport (voluntary "self-deportation" is cheaper, cleaner, and makes "compassionate conservatives" feel less bad) every "illegal" we can lay our hands on with no thought to any extenuating circumstances.

Fortunately, organized labor and the Progressive Caucus know that mass deportation (including the cheaper and cleaner version) is not the answer for millions of human beings and their American family members.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. You don't have to deport the illegals, just jail their employers.

The fine on the business should cover the cost of imprisonment.

[William Z. Foster]

48. you are calling for a police state

Odd that the very people who want to throw "them" out of America have such a profound contempt for the principles upon which the country was founded - which is really all that the country is, since unlike other nations it is not based on ethnicity or religion.

Employers are precluded from applying a double standard to candidates for employment based on "suspicion" and would we really want employers to become a de facto agent for law enforcement? Employers are precluded from doing the sort of background check that would tell them with certainty whether or not a person were legal. Do we want that under any circumstances, even if it would work?

How do we know whom to suspect and whom not to suspect, if not based on race? Should you be held legally liable - criminally liable for a felony and jailed - if it turns out the person who mowed your lawn or cleaned your gutters was not "legal?" Will you be asking for proof of citizenship before you give anyone a ride, have them in your house, or hire them for an odd job? Should you go to jail if you fail to do that? What if the proof of citizenship is not valid? Then what? You will still be criminally liable, or otherwise how can we hold employers liable?

What would you do in those circumstances? Turn away brown people to cover your ass and be on the safe side? Of course you would. What else could you do? You would not turn away a white person, because you know on some level that even if they were an undocumented alien the likelihood of you getting into trouble would be very small. Of course it would, and of course you know that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. I would give every employer the tools to verify that the SSN isn't bogus...

... before hiring the person. 1-800-SSN-CHEK. "I have Joe W, SSN xxx-xxx-xxxx, here in my office applying for this job. Is this really him?"

If the employer chooses to ignore the info, they take their chances with the law.

[William Z. Foster]

63. I would support something like that

I would issue work cards at the border to all seeking work. If they in fact find work, they are good to go, and this gives employers something to keep on record. If they don't find work, they are unlikely to stay. Then we need some simple and streamlined process for citizenship for those who desire it. Of course, if we made it easy to come work, many would not want to become citizens. Anything to get people into the system would improve things.

A national "is this guy legal or should I call the cops" system is step toward a police state, sorry. It just is. It is "guilty until proven innocent."

But my proposal would achieve the same thing without eroding civil liberties. What say you?

[Romulox]

70. Wow Willy. You sound like quite the HERETIC! So LIVEly! Ready to play another round? :)

:dilemma: :hi:

[treestar]

75. Employers are already burdened

They have to pay their employees taxes for them - make employees pay child support orders - the government is forever shifting its job to "employers."

Big companies can afford to and comply. It only stifles the smaller companies - the ones that create the most new jobs.

Let the employers hire whoever they will - they will tend to prefer Americans (better communication) if the playing field is level.

Those employing illegals now would just go out of business, too. The illegals' jobs will just disappear, along with more jobs up the chain.

[treestar]

74. Why do people think this is going to work?

It's just as impractical as deporting all of the aliens.

Pass a workable law instead having an idealistic one that can't be enforced.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. 1-800-SSN-CHEK

set up a toll free number so that employers can verify that the person they are considering hiring is really the person to whom the SSN belongs.

Pretty easy, except politically. Only legal workers would benefit from this and very few people are looking out for their interests.

If the employer knows they can go to jail for hiring the identity thief, it will solve half the problem.

The other half work in the cash economy, which is more problematic.

[William Z. Foster]

86. enough of this

It has been explained to you why this is a bad idea, why the AFL-CIO fought and won an injunction against it, and you have not responded to that, Instead you sneak the same talking point back into the discussion wherever you can.

This is willful misrepresentation - you are trying to imply something that is false, that you know to be false or else you would represent an argument defending it, and you have not.

This is a police state solution you are advocating here, and you are knowingly doing it in a deceptive way.

If you have a rebuttal to the problems with this "dial an illegal - or go to jail yourself" proposal, then make that rebuttal. If you do not, then stop posting something that you know to be false.

You know that your sneaky little argument here has been completely refuted and demolished. Defend it, or stop using it.

[William Z. Foster]

87. here we go again

Your 1-800-bustthemexicans idea is merely a variant - with much more potential for abuse - on the Bush administration "no match" policy under Chertoff. There are legitimate concerns about this, and your position is 180 degrees opposed from that of the ACLU, immigrant rights groups, organized Labor, and small business people as well.

Please respond to these issues about your controversial proposals - disingenuously presented to mislead people. If you cannot respond to this, then you have no case to support the statements you are making, and merely posting them again and again is spamming the board with talking points. There are serious issues here. You have not addressed them. You merely keep posting your proposal as though it had not already been shown to have some serious problems.

AFL-CIO, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center Challenge New Homeland Security Rule
Groups File Lawsuit Charging DHS Rule Would Cause Widespread Discrimination and Harm U.S. Citizens and Other Authorized Workers

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, along with other local labor movements, today filed a lawsuit charging that a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule will threaten jobs of U.S. citizens and other legally authorized workers simply because of errors in the government's inaccurate Social Security earnings databases. The rule violates workers' rights and imposes burdensome obligations on employers who receive Social Security Administration (SSA) “no-match” letters that inform an employer of alleged discrepancies between employee records and the SSA database.

Under the new rule, many U.S. citizens and legally authorized workers could be required to be terminated if their erroneous SSA records are not fixed within 90 days of an SSA "no-match" letter being sent to an employer. The rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 14. SSA intends to send out notices to employers enforcing the new rule beginning next Tuesday, September 4. The new notices will be sent to approximately 140,000 employers, affecting about eight million employees.

"This rule is a new tool to repress workers' rights in the name of phony immigration enforcement," said John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO. "Employers have used SSA 'no-match' letters to fire workers when workers try to organize, when they report a wage claim or workplace hazard, or when they get injured. The new rule gives employers a stronger pretext for engaging in such unlawful conduct."

http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ssa_related_info/ssa003.htm

The "No Match Letters" Controversy

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is ratcheting up its efforts to make employers responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws related to employment of unauthorized workers. Their most recent efforts were challenged in the US District Court in the Northern District of California, where plaintiffs were successfully able to preliminarily enjoin a new rule that would have resulted in termination of many employees based upon employers' receipt of "no- match letters" from the Social Security administration (SSA). The temporary enjoinder highlights the need for attorneys to be more vigilant in their efforts to advise clients of the importance of I-9 compliance as well as illustrating the difficulty employer's face when attempting to do so.

It is impossible to know how many of those individuals targeted were US citizens or work-authorized aliens, but it is clear that DHS was willing to move forward with a broad enforcement mechanism where it knew the system was flawed. The SSA Inspector General stated in Dec. 2006 that 17.8 million of the SSA’s 435 million records contain errors that could result in discrepancies relating to a workers status, of which more than 70 percent belong to native born US citizens.

http://www.davidsonschiller.com/newsletter/displayNewsletter.asp?NewsletterID=33

Pending 'No-Match' rules put employers in difficult positions

The Social Security Administration (SSA) every year sends thousands of “no-match” letters to employers asking for help matching Social Security numbers (SSNs) with employee names. The SSA originally generated these letters to ensure that employees' earnings were properly credited to their Social Security records, protecting their Social Security benefits. Innocent discrepancies usually trigger no-match letters—misspelled names, name changes and database errors—and it's up to employers to reconcile them.

In recent years, however, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sought to transform the no-match letter system into a mechanism for enforcing laws against illegal immigration. In August 2007, DHS and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued new rules changing both the language of the no-match letters and the requirements for employers to respond to them. Earlier this fall, a California lawsuit stopped DHS from enforcing the new rules.

Note: It is illegal to discriminate or retaliate against employees who receive no-match letters.

http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/articles/7085/1/Pending-No-Match-rules-put-employers-in-difficult-positions/Page1.html#

No Justice with No-Match Rule

In San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ruled in favor of unions, along with the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, which have drawn the line on tactics the Homeland Security Department is using for immigration enforcement. At issue is a proposal that would have required Social Security to send out letters on September 4 to over 160,000 employers, listing the names of at least eight million workers. The letters would have listed those employees whose numbers don't match Social Security Administration (SSA) records. Workers would then have had 90 days to come up with new numbers.

The 90 days would have expired near Christmas. Employers would then have been required to fire any worker who could not produce a number the SSA could verify. Judge Chesney's order stopped the SSA from sending the letters, and further hearings will take place to decide whether or not to make the temporary prohibition permanent.

The new regulation assumes that anyone who can't provide an SSA-verified number is not in the country legally. An estimated 12 million people in the United States have no legal immigration status. Most work. In order to get hired, they have to present a Social Security number to their employer. Some use invented numbers, while others borrow existing numbers that belong to someone else. This actually subsidizes the Social Security fund, since undocumented workers can't claim benefits, although they're paying deductions.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=no_justice_with_nomatch_rule

[William Z. Foster]

88. where this can all lead, and why it is so dangerous

These calls to increase government surveillance and police powers, and enroll co-workers and employers into the effort - while threatening them with felony charges if they do NOT snitch on others - and the building and cross-referencing of various databases are being used to persecute the weakest and poorest people, used against working class people, and by promoting this you are encouraging the establishment of a police state.

"Today the immigrants, tomorrow...?" The ACLU understands this. The AFL-CIO understands this. There is no excuse for any Democrat to be promoting these dangerous ideas.

Government Abandons Current "No Match" Rule - Harmful to Legal Workers

Homeland Security Department to Issue Revised Rule Still Relying on Flawed Social Security Database

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) abandoned its attempt to enforce its proposed "no match" rule that would improperly use social security records for immigration enforcement. In a late Friday afternoon court filing the day after Thanksgiving in federal court in San Francisco, DHS requested that a lawsuit challenging the rule be put on hold until March 2008. The government plans to publish a revised rule in December 2007 that it claims will pass legal muster.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and labor groups to block the proposed "no match" rule which would require employers to penalize or fire U.S. citizens and legal workers whose social security numbers don't match up with the Social Security Administration (SSA) database. The lawsuit charges that the SSA database is fundamentally flawed and error-prone, and that the rule would result in the firing of countless legal workers as well as discrimination against those who look or sound "foreign."

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/government-abandons-current-no-match-rule-harmful-legal-workers

John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO:

"The Bush administration essentially admitted that the rule is unlawful. We've said all along that DHS had no authority to adopt this rule, which is just another Bush anti-worker initiative. As Judge Breyer found, more than half a million working women and men would have been affected by the rule, and many risked being fired even though fully authorized to work."

Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and one of the attorneys in the lawsuit:

"The government saw the handwriting on the wall and abandoned its failed effort to defend this rule. But DHS is continuing down this disastrous path of punishing citizens and legal workers by using the fatally-flawed database. DHS should finally abandon this illegal approach instead of repeating the same mistake."

Marielena Hincapié, Staff Attorney and Director of Programs at NILC:

"No matter how DHS alters its rule, any use of a social security mismatch to assume immigration status will trap workers in a bureaucratic nightmare and punish them unfairly. Employers should recognize that the government's decision not to defend the illegal DHS rule means that businesses must not apply it or they would risk legal challenges by employees who would suffer discrimination and be adversely affected."

Sharon Cornu, Executive Secretary Treasurer, Alameda County AFL-CIO:

"The illegal DHS rule harms workers and is a thinly-veiled effort to attack the wages and working conditions of the American workforce."

In addition to the AFL-CIO, which is represented by the law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP, other parties bringing the lawsuit include the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, NILC, as well as the San Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, represented by Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.

In addition to Guttentag and Hincapié, lawyers on the case include Scott Kronland, Stephen Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass, Linda Lye and Danielle Leonard of Altshuler Berzon LLP; Jonathan Hiatt, James Coppess and Ana Avendaño of the AFL-CIO; Jennifer Chang, Mónica M. Ramírez, and Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Alan Schlosser and Julia Mass of the ACLU of Northern California; Linton Joaquin and Monica Guizar of NILC; and David Rosenfeld and Manjari Chawla of Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/government-abandons-current-no-match-rule-harmful-legal-workers

Here is another brilliant "no match" idea - to disenfranchise voters.

Questions & Answers about Florida's "No Match" Law

The "no match" law prevents voter applicants from becoming registered to vote if the state cannot match their driver's license number, Florida identification number ("Florida ID"), or the last four digits of their Social Security number with a record in the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration databases.

If a voter applicant's information cannot be "matched," the supervisor of elections must notify the applicant by mail that s/he must provide a copy of his or her ID by mail, fax, email, or in person to the supervisor before Election Day to become registered to vote and allowed to vote with a regular ballot. If a voter has a Florida driver's license (or a Florida non-driver ID card), she must provide a copy of the license (or non-driver Florida ID card). If a voter does not have one of these cards, and provided the last 4 digits of his/her Social Security number on his/her voter registration application, s/he must provide a copy of his/her Social Security card.

http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/nomatch.cfm

"No Match" Law Controversial

Florida's new controversial "no match" law has caused much confusion and back-and-forth discussion amongst politicians, voting rights activists and citizens. The law, which Secretary of State Kurt Browning began enforcing on September 8, bars any Florida citizen from voting a regular ballot (as opposed to a provisional ballot) if the state cannot validate the citizen’s driver's license or Social Security number at the time of registration, no matter how much identification the voter is able to bring to the polls. The process starts with an attempt to "match" voter information to other government databases, a practice for which the Social Security Administration reports a 46% failure rate. In Florida NAACP vs. Browning, the lawsuit brought by voter registration groups to challenge this law, state officials admitted that typographical errors by government workers are often responsible for the failures.

http://fl.aclu.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=31421.0

[treestar]

90. Why would that work?

Unless there is a photo or digital fingerprint on the SS card, that would be meaningless.

[Contrary1]

52. Not to mention the Gitmos that will need to be built to hold them until deportation...

And then there's cost of verifying the status of children born here. The cost of the public defenders assigned to cases, etc.

The price of very single service or product that the "illegals" have a hand in delivering to real Murkins will skyrocket.

Yep, bigotry tends to get very expensive.

[backscatter712]

76. The powers that be that have bought our gov't don't want to deport them. Just keep them illegal...

They love the status quo. They love being able to employ an entire class of people that have been declared "illegal". It's the next best thing to slavery!

They're not going to deport them. Just keep them in that legal limbo status that ensure that the cops can kick down their doors for any reason at all, including no reason, denies them protection of the Bill of Rights, and ensure that they can't bitch if the conditions at work are bad - don't want to get deported, do you?

They'll drive up the hate juuuuust high enough to ensure they can keep a continuous state of illegality in place, keep the Juan Crow laws in effect, and maintain their virtual slavery.

[William Z. Foster]

89. important point

The goal is to intimidate all workers, and to set one group against the other.

I think the reason that people are having difficulty seeing this is because we are not doing an adequate job of connecting economic exploitation with sexism and racism, and the economic system with the social patterns of dominance and power. The wealthy and their sycophants and mouthpieces - and white males speaking and acting to preserve their social status - do not want us to make those connections. But there is a common denominator. The common denominator is not internal states of "being greedy" or of "being a racist." Rather the common denominator is about domination of others, and power and control over others. Money, race, and gender are all factors in that, and the patterns of social domination is relationships and arrangements and organization are duplicated and repeated at all levels of society, and in all social interactions. We can see them in operation every day in all things. That is the discussion that those who are in power - even if only by grabbing power over a discussion in one of these threads, or holding power over others and intimidating them in a work environment - and those admiring and carrying after for those in power - desperately want to prevent and squelch.