Ron Paul on E-Verify/Immigration

[MelissaWV]

William Gheen of ALIPAC had the chance to interview presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul on illegal immigration while in Iowa a few weeks ago. Below is the video of the interview.

I would like to point out a few things about what Ron Paul said, and the manner in which he said it, that have me a little concerned regarding his tough stance on illegal immigration. In my overview of Ron Paul's immigration stance, I noted that Ron Paul voted against the implementation of the Basic Pilot Program (now E-VERIFY), which would allow employers to check with the federal government to ensure that a worker is legally allowed to work in this country. Looking at Ron Paul's record, I believe this vote against E-VERIFY was made because of his privacy concerns in relation to the Constitution, however there is really no excuse for voting against this program when you say that you believe employers who hire illegal aliens should be prosecuted. There is simply no other way for an employer to know that a worker is legal. The current I-9 form is weak and ineffective.

So while you watch the interview below you will see Paul hesitate when asked whether employers should be prosecuted if they hire illegal aliens. Paul says in effect "only if it can be proven that an employer knowingly hired them". Well that is the way things are currently run and as we can see, by the lack of prosecution of employers hiring illegal aliens, it is very hard to prove that they "knowingly" did so. So how does Ron Paul suggest that employers make sure that the person they are hiring is legal if he opposes things like E-VERIFY?

I would like Ron Paul to answer that question, because I really see no other way to tackle that side of the illegal immigration problem. Without cutting off employers who not only knowingly hire illegal aliens, but are engaged in; unfair business practices, unfair competition, tax evasion and in many cases helping potential workers commit identity fraud or even sneak across the border, the flow of illegal aliens will continue.

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002637.html

We all either have a birth certificate (whose veracity can already be verified), or immigration papers (whose veracity can already be verified). Why do we need to be entered into yet another database? It seems like it would be in employers' best interests to spot-check some of the documentation they receive, after the employee signs a waiver (similar to how we already sign one at a lot of places for them to run a credit check).

It's funny... I hadn't seen this video but he pretty much agrees with what I've been saying for days.

Check before welfare.
Check at employment
No e-verify.
Check at arrest for a crime.

The trouble with the law as it stands is that there's no way to verify the crime you're suspected of (being illegal) until you're detained. This would be pretty much akin to deciding you're a drug dealer because you're in a bad neighborhood wearing a baggy jacket. I don't think any of us particularly like that kind of stop, but I've been proven wrong all week so far.

E-verify is mentioned seven times in the Arizona bill.

[MRoCkEd]

I would be fine with checking before welfare and at arrest for a crime, but I don't have any problem with an "illegal alien" coming here to work. Dismantle the welfare state and eliminate regulations on business if you want more jobs. Many of the companies hiring illegals would just go out of business if they had to hire Americans considering all of the provisions they would have to deal with.

[bruce leeroy]

when I first read about this bill I was cool with it, I mean for christs sakes, I live in Texas and illegal immigration has affected my work prospects and wages personally. BUt in reading the debate on here, I am begining to see the legit police-state concerns.........IMO, these are the things that should be done to curb illegal immigration
1. go after employers, and if the employer is an immigrant themselves(and many many of those who hire illegals are immigrants who own construction crews, restaraunts and laundries), deport them
2. go after landlords who rent to illegals
3.beef up border security
4. an extra tax of fee on money sent out of the country by someone who cant produce proof of legal residency

we already have profiling, no knock warrants, good faith warrants, and all kinds of privileges and "tools" that law enforcement and the goverment already abuses

[constituent]

So we know where he stands on wedge issues like e-verify and "foreign" immigration, but how about something we can all agree on. Where does Ron Paul stand on amending the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide an exemption for all natural born citizens of the United States?

If immigration is going to be the issue of the week, the way I see it is that we can fight losing battles that will divide us (and then bitch and moan when nothing works out right), or we can pick a few battles we might be able to win and should all be able to unite behind.

[angelatc]

1. go after employers, and if the employer is an immigrant themselves(and many many of those who hire illegals are immigrants who own construction crews, restaraunts and laundries), deport them
2. go after landlords who rent to illegals
3.beef up border security
4. an extra tax of fee on money sent out of the country by someone who cant produce proof of legal residency

we already have profiling, no knock warrants, good faith warrants, and all kinds of privileges and "tools" that law enforcement and the goverment already abuses

So, your perfect law would hold everybody except the actual criminal responsible?

[bruce leeroy]

So, your perfect law would hold everybody except the actual criminal responsible?


isnt there already a law that says if you are illegal and get caught, you are deported?

[John Taylor]

isnt there already a law that says if you are illegal and get caught, you are deported?

Yeah, and it's that law that AZ will be enforcing.

[specsaregood]

1. go after employers, and if the employer is an immigrant themselves(and many many of those who hire illegals are immigrants who own construction crews, restaraunts and laundries), deport them


Didn't AZ just enact a year or so ago a strict set of laws/punishments on employers of illegals? What happened to that? I guess it wasn't working?

[The Patriot]

I support Ron Paul's position on e verify.

[angelatc]

isnt there already a law that says if you are illegal and get caught, you are deported?

But as I understand it, the state was limited to deferring to ICE, who essentially stopped deporting aliens detained for minor violations a couple of decades ago.

Another problem is that the deported illegals keep coming back. It isn't unusual for them to get picked up 4 or 5 times here.

They have absolutely zero respect for us.

[John Taylor]

Didn't AZ just enact a year or so ago a strict set of laws/punishments on employers of illegals? What happened to that? I guess it wasn't working?

When you have an open desert hundreds of thousands of people walk across, deportation doesn't work so well.

[specsaregood]

When you have an open desert hundreds of thousands of people walk across, deportation doesn't work so well.

The bill I'm referencing had nothing to do with deportation, but rather an attempt to get illegals to leave through lack of employment. It was a bill designed to go after employers.
This is the one I was thinking of:
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/ImmigrationAlert_ArizonaImmigLaw_17dec07.pdf

Excerpt:


Arizona Immigration Law to Take Effect January 1, 2008

The employer sanctions law intends to prevent any employer in the State of Arizona from knowingly or intentionally hiring and/or employing illegal immigrants. As of January 1, 2008, all employers in Arizona, regardless of size, will be required to use the federal government’s EVerify program to verify the status of new
employees. Although the new law faces many legal challenges, ongoing efforts have not succeeded thus far in preventing the law from taking effect as originally intended.

Penalties for intentionally or knowingly hiring or employing illegal immigrants are severe. Employers face mandatory suspension of their business licenses for first offenses and permanent revocation of their business licenses for second offenses. The law appears to treat each business location as separate from its corporate affiliates. Consequently, the dominant interpretation of the law is that an entity with a violation at one location might be shut down, but affiliated operations operating under separate licenses would not be affected unless they also are found to have knowingly hired illegal workers. However, businesses that operate multiple locations under a shared business license would likely be viewed as a single entity, and a violation at one site could impact all related business operations.

[John Taylor]

The bill I'm referencing had nothing to do with deportation, but rather an attempt to get illegals to leave through lack of employment. It was a bill designed to go after employers.
This is the one I was thinking of:
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/ImmigrationAlert_ArizonaImmigLaw_17dec07.pdf

Excerpt:

Yeah, that's the law in AZ.

Sorry, I'm missing precisely what you're driving at.

[dannno]

The bill I'm referencing had nothing to do with deportation, but rather an attempt to get illegals to leave through lack of employment. It was a bill designed to go after employers.
This is the one I was thinking of:
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/ImmigrationAlert_ArizonaImmigLaw_17dec07.pdf

Excerpt:

Great, so now big business will be able to pay off the police so they can hire all the illegal cheap labor and push the small businessman even further out of the picture as they won't be able to compete on a level playing field.

[specsaregood]

Yeah, that's the law in AZ.

Sorry, I'm missing precisely what you're driving at.

That is the law that went into effect in 2008. IIRC, it is different than the new stuff that is in the news. I remember when this passed in 2008 people were hopeful that it would make a difference. If they are passing these much more draconian laws now, I guess it didn't make much difference after all?

[John Taylor]

That is the law that went into effect in 2008. IIRC, it is different than the new stuff that is in the news. I remember when this passed in 2008 people were hopeful that it would make a difference. If they are passing these much more draconian laws now, I guess it didn't make much difference after all?

Perhaps, or perhaps the problem was that the local police had no authority to stop and turn over for deportation illegals.

This law is not a "much more draconian" law. All it does is apply the EXISTING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW to the state of Arizona, and allow local law enforcement to actually implement it.

[John Taylor]

Great, so now big business will be able to pay off the police so they can hire all the illegal cheap labor and push the small businessman even further out of the picture as they won't be able to compete on a level playing field.

It's the small businessmen who make the most use of illegals in AZ.

[MelissaWV]

http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Colbert has a cute summary called "Docu-drama."

Also: Patriot, I thought you were in favor of the AZ bill... how can you be that and be against e-verify? :confused:

[John Taylor]

http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Colbert has a cute summary called "Docu-drama."

Also: Patriot, I thought you were in favor of the AZ bill... how can you be that and be against e-verify? :confused:

Pro-Swedish socialism Colbert? Say it isn't so!!!!

[MelissaWV]

Pro-Swedish socialism Colbert? Say it isn't so!!!!

Um I'm not citing him as a reliable source :p Hell, he makes it sound like you are arrested automatically for not having your ID. That isn't the case. If it is, you've got a honey of a lawsuit on your hands if you're a citizen.

* * *
The Patriot

I'm curious how one can support Dr. Paul on e-verify, but also support this bill?

[JP2010]

when I first read about this bill I was cool with it, I mean for christs sakes, I live in Texas and illegal immigration has affected my work prospects and wages personally. BUt in reading the debate on here, I am begining to see the legit police-state concerns.........IMO, these are the things that should be done to curb illegal immigration
1. go after employers, and if the employer is an immigrant themselves(and many many of those who hire illegals are immigrants who own construction crews, restaraunts and laundries), deport them
2. go after landlords who rent to illegals
3.beef up border security
4. an extra tax of fee on money sent out of the country by someone who cant produce proof of legal residency

we already have profiling, no knock warrants, good faith warrants, and all kinds of privileges and "tools" that law enforcement and the goverment already abuses

So, go after everyone except those that are breaking the law?

[Danke]

We all either have a birth certificate (whose veracity can already be verified), or immigration papers (whose veracity can already be verified).

Not true.

[dannno]

It's the small businessmen who make the most use of illegals in AZ.

*whhooooooooshhhhh*


That's great, I like small businesses. Big businesses benefit from the Federal Reserve, govt subsidies and govt. regulation. They already have enough subsidies, I am GLAD that small businesses have a pool of cheap labor to help keep their business going otherwise they would be out of business due to the FED, subsidies and regulations.

However, now illegal immigrants will only be able to work where law enforcement doesn't check.. so now BIG business will have an entirely new advantage because they have the capital and the connections to pay off the police so they can have cheap labor.. or find loopholes.. small businesses will lose their cheap labor base for the threat of losing their business and then they will go out of business.

[dannno]

Not true.

Well most do, the point was that an employer could require those documents if they wanted.

[ARealConservative]

Well most do, the point was that an employer could require those documents if they wanted.

a birth certificate is too easy to forge to make look legitimate. If that is the solution, then we might as well continue doing nothing at all. It will produce the same results.

[dannno]

a birth certificate is too easy to forge to make look legitimate. If that is the solution, then we might as well continue doing nothing at all. It will produce the same results.

But you can call the hospital to verify...

[specsaregood]

But you can call the hospital to verify...

You sure about that? I don't know, but I sorta doubt it.

[MelissaWV]

a birth certificate is too easy to forge to make look legitimate. If that is the solution, then we might as well continue doing nothing at all. It will produce the same results.

A birth certificate has one location to verify veracity. E-verify adds layers that can butcher names, juxtapose identities, and generally screw everything up (let alone violate your privacy, but I digress).

Are you thinking of foster children? I would think a certified/notarized document from the adoption agency would suffice here.

If there is another scenario I am thinking of, I don't know of it.

Regular IDs are not only incredibly easy to forge, but illegals can obtain them legally in several states. Do the LEOs know all of that off the top of their head? How easily can those IDs be changed to look "citizen-owned"?

Documentation is not generally checked. Supposedly, e-verify will fix all of this. I foresee problems, but perhaps having a difficult name with three characters not commonly available via searches has something to do with it.

The difference between spot-checking on the street and spot-checking at offices is miles apart. There are often identity thieves that snag a citizen's license information, and perhaps that's a "known illegal." Now, would you like to straighten this out at an office setting and be able to carry some sort of certification that you're you, or would you like to get hauled in because you match the illegal?

There are loopholes all over this thing.

[MelissaWV]

You sure about that? I don't know, but I sorta doubt it.

Right now, in many (? I can't say "all" because I don't know) states you can call in to verify professional licensures. You can call in and say "Bob Smith, license #4567890... is his license valid?" and they will reply with a prompt "yes" or "no." They cannot provide you additional information. It's done by the same people that take down the information and print the little cards themselves. It uses absolutely minimal staffing.

Having someone dedicate a small amount of time to answering the phone for this seems like it would cost a lot less and be much less hassle than e-verify.

[Paulitey]

Ron Paul is against it because it will allow the government to interfere within private contracts amongst individuals.

[specsaregood]

Right now, in many (? I can't say "all" because I don't know) states you can call in to verify professional licensures. You can call in and say "Bob Smith, license #4567890... is his license valid?" and they will reply with a prompt "yes" or "no." They cannot provide you additional information. It's done by the same people that take down the information and print the little cards themselves. It uses absolutely minimal staffing.

Having someone dedicate a small amount of time to answering the phone for this seems like it would cost a lot less and be much less hassle than e-verify.

Right, my question was in regards to Danno's comment about being able to call a hospital to verify a birth certificate. I assumed he meant that you can currently do that and I'm not sure you can. Maybe he thought they could change it to do that, in which case, yes I guess they could.

[MelissaWV]

Right, my question was in regards to Danno's comment about being able to call a hospital to verify a birth certificate. I assumed he meant that you can currently do that and I'm not sure you can. Maybe he thought they could change it to do that, in which case, yes I guess they could.

Ahhh.

Well there's that option, or:


You may not have heard of E-Verify before and wonder why your employer participates. Though participation in E-Verify is required of some employers, most employers participate voluntarily. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use—and it’s the best way companies can ensure a legal workforce. Until E-Verify, there was no way for employers to verify that the information employees provided was valid or that the documents presented were genuine. E-Verify offers employers a powerful tool in protecting themselves against those who try to cheat the system.

Employees also benefit when their employers use E-Verify. E-Verify can alert you to possible errors with your government records and correcting those errors now rather than later may save you significant time and frustration in the future.

E-Verify compares the information you provide on Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, against millions of government records and generally provides results in three to five seconds. If the information matches, you do not need to do anything. If there’s a mismatch, E-Verify will alert your employer—and you can choose to contest the mismatch and work until you and the government resolve the mismatch. E-Verify works by comparing information entered from your Form I-9 to:


455 million Social Security Administration (SSA) records
80 million U.S. Department of Homeland Security records
Department of Homeland Security databases contain records about employment-based visas, immigration and naturalization status and U.S. passport issuance, that allow E-Verify to compare information against a wide variety of sources.


How it Works
Before your employer can use E-Verify to verify your employment eligibility, your employer must first enter into a written agreement with DHS in which it agrees to follow strict procedures designed to ensure that you are treated fairly. When you apply for a job with an employer that uses E-Verify, the employer should notify you that it uses E-Verify. After hire, within three days of starting work, you and your employer must complete Form I-9. If your employer uses E-Verify, you must provide your Social Security number on Form I-9. (Providing a Social Security number on Form I-9 is voluntary unless your employer participates in E-Verify.) Also, if you present a List B document with Form I-9, the document must contain a photo. (Some List B documents without photos would be acceptable if your employer did not participate in E-Verify. You can also be provided an accommodation for religious practices.)

Once your Form I-9 is completed, your employer will enter the information from it into E-Verify. Depending on the documents you provided, your employer may have to compare a photo displayed on a computer screen to the photo on your document. The photos should match, which ensures the document photo is genuine and hasn’t been altered.

Once the information has been entered and submitted, E-Verify will compare it against millions of government records. If the information entered matches, E-Verify will return an “Employment Authorized” result. This confirms you are authorized to work in the United States. Your employer then simply closes the case to complete the E-Verify process.

If there’s a mismatch, E-Verify will return a “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) result. If this happens, your employer needs to print and review a notice with you that explains the cause of the mismatch and what it means for you.

You have the right to challenge the mismatch. If you do so, your employer will refer the case in E-Verify to the appropriate agency (either SSA or the Department of Homeland Security) and print a letter that it must give to you. The letter contains important instructions and contact information that you will need in order to resolve the mismatch. You then have eight federal government work days from the date the case was referred in E-Verify to initiate contact with the appropriate government agency to start resolving the problem. During this time, your employer must allow you to continue working and may not delay your training, reduce your work hours or take any other adverse actions against you.

E-Verify will alert your employer of an update in your case. If you successfully resolve the mismatch, E-Verify will return a result of “Employment Authorized.” If you don’t resolve the mismatch, E-Verify will return a “Final Nonconfirmation” (FNC) result. Your employer may terminate you because of E-Verify only if you receive an FNC.

In rare cases, the Department of Homeland Security or SSA might need more time to verify your employment eligibility. When this happens, E-Verify will return a “Case in Continuance” result. When your case is in continuance your employer must allow you to continue to work until E-Verify gives a final result of “Employment Authorized” or an FNC.

Yep. DHS. The same people who have erroneously put a whole bunch of people on no-fly lists are now going to decide if your eligible to work... in Arizona ;)

[bruce leeroy]

"where's your green card?"
"green card...........I was born in East LA"