White House Response on Worksite Enforcement
By nthompsonwhitehouse Posted in Immigration — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A recent comment displayed a graph showing decreased employer arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the period leading up to 2004 as well as decreased notices of an intent to fine employers by ICE in the period leading up to 2004. It is too bad the graph did not show data going from 2004 up to April 2007 or explain how ICE has redirected their employer enforcement actions to stop levying fines on companies- which were treated by illegal employers as the "cost of doing" business- and instead to focus on criminal prosecutions and asset forfeitures.
More below the fold
First, on arrests. The graph shows 159 arrests for 2004, which only reflects the criminal arrests in 2004 and leaves out approximately 685 administrative arrests- making the total 844. If you look at what has happened in the last two years, you will see a drastic increase in worksite enforcement. In FY05, there were 1,292 arrests. In FY06, there were 4,383 arrests, and through April of this year, there have been 3,503 arrests- this in only four months.
Second, on notices of intent to fine. In sum, this practice levied administrative fines and was a slap on the wrist. Since 2004 ICE has moved from a singular focus on administrative fines and hearings to a much tougher combination of criminal prosecutions and asset forfeitures. A 2005 program, "Operation Rollback," assessed $15,000,000 in civil fines, an amount greater than the sum of administrative fines collected in the previous eight years and was the largest worksite enforcement penalty in US history. In the first quarter of FY07, criminal and civil forfeitures have totaled $26,700,000.
In sum, a drop in the notices of intent to fine does not indicate decreased worksite enforcement, and figures past 2004 show a much stronger and more aggressive program for cracking down on illegals in the workplace.
Nicholas Thompson
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives
In response to Joliphant:
"If I may ask what were deportation rates over that time period?"
Formal removals:
FY2001: 178,207
FY2002: 150,788
FY2003: 189,856
FY2004: 204,290
FY2005: 208,521
"And where were they deported to?"
For the ones from FY05, nearly 70% went to Mexico, while the next 4 leading countries (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Brazil) accounted for nearly 20% of the total.
Nicholas Thompson
Thanks for the data Nicholas. One question: Why do we go through the expense deporting anyone to Mexico when we aren't enforcing our border? It makes no sense to me. Please explain.
It is the same as bailing out your sinking boat without putting the plug back in.
Am I missing something here?
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
Its better than I hoped.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mr Thompson,
I will be honest and let you know up front that I am upset about the current immigration bill. However, now that time is passed I am more calm now. I just want four questions answered - please.
1. Why would a 700 mile fence like the one passed last year be a bad thing?
Honestly, if you went a overboard with securing the border, if you want to call it that, I don't, it would go a long way to reassuring the public that you are serious about this.
2. Why would delaying any "visas" or "guest worker programs" until 6 months AFTER the border securing measures or other measures listed here are completed be a bad thing?
3. Why can't we have an employer check system for employees being legal (ie. social security numbers matching the applicants) like we do with insta-checks to buy a gun?
4. Why can't we have really big penalties ( a $10,000 fine minimum per illegal and jail time for multiple illegals or infractions) for employers who willfully hire illegals?
If you in fact did these things so there would not be another flood of illegals, I would feel much better about all this. In light of the fact that previous legislation was more of a joke than anything else (1965 and 1986), why can't you reassure us this is not another joke by doing these things? - Or at least publicly stating this is what you want Congress to pass.
Until then, I feel like Charlie Brown and you are about to pull the football away again right before I try to kick it. I am not about to fall for it again. I just want some reassurance.
Is that to much to ask for?
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
1) The administration does not believe fencing is a "bad" thing. But it is not the only component necessary to securing the border, and is most effective if used in combination with more readily available resources- sensors, cameras, and UAVs to detect an illegal entry, and helicopters and Border Patrol agents to apprehend illegals.
Now as for the fence itself, this bill is actually a big step toward meeting the goals of the Secure Fence Act because the existence of the triggers ties the TWP and Z visas to progress on the fence and on detention space. It therefore reflects a commitment by supporters of the TWP and Z (a group that includes many who voted against the Secure Fence Act last year, including Democrats who now control key committees) to provide the money necessary to build a large chunk of the fence and to maintain it. The bill’s triggers mandate that hundreds of miles of fence must be built before temporary worker and Z visas may be issued. It doesn't mean more won't be built after.
(2) Right now, these programs are directly tied to meeting certain border security goals, so no Z visas or temporary worker passes will be offered until border security triggers are met.
(3) This is exactly what the bill proposes. The bill requires employees to produce specified secure documents, such as passports, to establish their identity and work authorization. It will also require all employers to use the Employment Eligibility Verification System (online system that checks eligibility for work with DHS and SSA) to ensure employees are legal, and no individual will be able to keep a job unless they can be verified under the EEVS.
(4) Again, the bill proposes stiffer fines -- exceeding the amount you propose. In the bill, fines for hiring an illegal worker are $5,000 maximum per illegal worker for the first offense, $10,000 maximum per illegal worker for the second, $25,000 maximum per illegal worker for the third , and $75,000 maximum per illegal worker for the fourth. In addition, the bill increases the maximum criminal penalty for a pattern or practice of unlawful hiring twenty-five-fold, from $3,000 to $75,000, and would impose a prison term of up to six months.
I appreciate your honesty and posing very good questions. I hope this dialogue is helpful for you and others who might read it. We certainly find it helpful to know your questions and concerns.
Nicholas Thompson
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives
Mr. Thompson,
The President has been reluctant to slow at using the tools in the form of laws on the books right now to address illegal immigration. Why should we be happy about giving him new tools which he will not use?
A great deal of the angst over this bill is a lack of trust in the general public that this President and this administration will do what they promise they say they will do with this legislation, and that even if they try, they will not do so very effectively.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
It's almost as if you don't actually need new laws after all, but simply the willingness to enforce the existing ones. Who would ever have guessed it?
So, does this mean the absurd immigration bill will be dropped?
or the presidency ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
the White House started behaving disrespectfully. You know, saying that anyone who dislked this bill wants to kill all illegal immigrants.
The White House and the President are our employees, not our rulers. Strictly speaking, the onus is on them to display respect to us. You need to work on your republican mindset.
In any case my point was a valid one, and hardly "disrespectful". One rationale offered for why we need this bill is that it is impossible to go after employers under the existing law. The numbers offered here by the WH indicate that it is indeed possible. So (1) why was this not done in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004? And (2) why do we need compehensive immigration reform to do it now?
While I welcome the White House spokesperson, I have to agree that if the Administration had been serious on enforcement its credibility wouldn't be in tatters. Those charts are devastating, and just because PR-related show raids occurred each time an attempt was made to introduce this legislation doesn't mean the White House is any more serious now than it was in, say, 2002. It has lost all goodwill on enforcement issues, to put it mildly.
Joliphant also raises excellent questions about deportation rates. I would like to see those broken down by nation of origin, reason for deportation, and numbers of re-entry.
Those charts are devastating, and just because PR-related show raids occurred each time an attempt was made to introduce this legislation doesn't mean the White House is any more serious now than it was in, say, 2002. It has lost all goodwill on enforcement issues, to put it mildly.
That's not very courteous, and not only that but false.
Are you really making a claim that the Whitehouse only did enforcement for public relations?
If a troll had come in dropping talking points they would have been crushed but here WE are trashing someone from the Whitehouse and it's being defended, not only defended but encouraged!
From a Whitehouse Press Release Dated June-19-2006...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060619-13.html
Arrests For Criminal Violations Brought In Worksite Enforcement Actions – The Most Effective Means Of Enforcement And Best Measure Of ICE's New Approach – Have Increased Significantly. These criminal arrests have increased from 24 in FY99 to 160 in FY04 to 176 in FY05 and to a record 382 so far this fiscal year. The number of indictments and criminal convictions has also increased.
Why does this not count as action by the Whitehouse? There's lots more there, and not that I want to be the defender of the Whitehouse on this issue but I think we are a little out of control.
We are supposed to be the grownups, the ones who are reasoned and make informed decisions.
The President actually has quite a good history of REAL enforcement.
Another quote...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060705-6.html
Funding For Immigration Enforcement Has Increased By 42 Percent Since The President Took Office.
Oh no now are we going to accuse him of squandering tax money?
Theres lots more folks, I think our emotions are in overdrive...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I could have imagined.
We have maybe 20 million illegal aliens here and we could only find 382 of them on worksites ?
Who is running ICE ? Colonel Clink ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That number represents EMPLOYER actions, who engage in the large scale employment of illegals knowingly with an attempt to defraud the government or something along those lines...
from the ICE website, a June 06 press release...
ICE has initiated a strategic shift in the way it approaches employers that intentionally violate the law and knowingly hire illegal aliens by bringing criminal charges against them and seizing their illegally-derived assets -- rather than relying on the old tactic of administrative fines as sanctions. Last fiscal year, this new approach resulted in 127 criminal convictions, up from 46 the previous fiscal year. More employers are also being charged with money laundering violations, which can result in prison sentences of up to 20 years. Last year, a single ICE worksite enforcement investigation resulted in a settlement and forfeiture of $15 million, an amount that represented the largest worksite enforcement penalty in U.S. history and surpassed the sum of all administrative fines from the previous eight years. ICE seeks to enhance its worksite enforcement investigations with proposed additional funding. The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request seeks $41.7 million in new funds and 171 additional agents to enhance ICE's worksite enforcement efforts. Most recently, ICE brought criminal charges against seven current and former managers of the nation’s largest pallet services company and arrested more than 1,000 of the company’s illegal alien employees.
Did everyone know that ICE was formed in 2003? Back when Bush was doing nothing about national security and illegal immigration.
The actual number of illegals deported, as in caught in country and sent back, "ICE removed nearly 195,000 illegal aliens from the country in FY 2006, up 13% from '05.
Another item implemented by the administration is that illegals caught on the border no longer get a hearing, costing us huge sums of money and wasted time, it's called the Expedited Removal (ER) authority. Another big plus is that illegals are only in-country an average of "roughly 19 days today, down from the average of 90 days for aliens placed in traditional removal proceedings before the Secure Border Initiative was launched."
This alone must account for a huge decrease in the illegal alien population, as they used to get released with a promise to appear at a hearing and simply dissapear, never mind the huge cost savings of not having to house and feed all these people for an average of 71 less days!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I live in a small suburb (technically its a city but our zipcode doesn't even show as us) even so I can open my phonebook and throw darts and find more employers than ICE has.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I live in a small suburb (technically its a city but our zipcode doesn't even show as us) even so I can open my phonebook and throw darts and find more employers than ICE has.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I still can't get that takedown on the clinton thread out of my head.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I differ with the current occupant on a matter of policy.
While I agree with your concerns I don't see antagonizing Mr. Thopson as being productive. I think we should be thankful he is taking the time to address our concerns.
As to my Republican mindset ? I have never sold anything to anyone by antagonizing them. I thought we let the Democrats pointlessly vent.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm asking him some rather sensible and obvious questions. Nor am I venting. Maybe you should stick to making your own points and not attempt to play moderator. Or if you know why the WH is enforcing the law now with more vigor than it was until the last couple of years, you can respond if you like.
Republican mindset
No, republican mindset. Small r.
I think we should be thankful he is taking the time to address our concerns.
A large number of concerns where raised on the prior threads. When they are addressed, I will be appreciative that our government is responding to us. For example, many questions were raised about the guest worker program and the "competitive wage" which the government will be setting. I'm hoping that they will be answered at some point.
Or would you like to be a hostile forum that they bypass ?
You undercut yourself.
Right about the time by Jon Sandor
the White House started behaving disrespectfully. You know, saying that anyone who dislked this bill wants to kill all illegal immigrants.
The funny thing is I agree with you on your policy questions. I want to see their answer too. I am pretty sure if you use a disrespectful tone they won't get answered.
As it stands the other representative for the office of strategic initiatives didn't provide very many answers. She was considerably less engaged with the site than speaker Gingrich was.
Would I say that the actual purpose of the OSI was to reach out to us by communicating to us ? Yes. We however have to work at making that a two way phenomenon. Sometimes the quiet voice is best heard.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you think you can get something out of them, especially with a quite voice, then I'd like to see it happen. I think it is fair to say that the WH has not been overly responsive to the questions we have asked so far.
The question, again, is why border security died a death in the years after 911, and is being revived now.
But we can give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their attempts to communicate. No one is giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the bill.
ScottBomb got them to react with just a graph from their own statistics. There must be some concern.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
by calling them to the carpet. ScottBomb's post was no less provocative than what Jon has been saying. I agree with Jon: what derailed this thread of comments was your attempt to overmoderate.
It ought to be painfully obvious to the White House by now that their credibility is in the toilet amongst the very people that traditionally give them the greatest benefit of the doubt. It's going to take some strong answers to tough questions by tough questioners to restore it.
But that's the real question isn't it? Is he addressing our concerns, or is this simply another attempt to spin the issue?
I for one have grave concerns that it is an honest attempt to address the issue. Consider:
1) I've been a reader here for a fair bit and it has only been in the last two months, with Bush poll numbers cratering that anyone from the administration has posted here.
2) The WSJ reports (and it is covered in another blog posting on the site today) that the RNC call center is not handling criticism well.
3) The Washington Times reports the RNC call center is being closed and all operators have been laid off. One admittedly anonymous operator reports a drop off in donations which the official RNC rep denies.
4) Bush himself has accused anyone who opposes the immigration bill of being a bigot. Sorry, I have real security concerns about his Kennedy inspired amnesty plan.
Yes, Bush has been right to continue to prosecute the GWOT in Iraq. I support him on that. But right now my opinion of him is about the same as my opinion of John McCain: The only thing he is right on is the GWOT, and that is not enough.
You mean curling up in a foetal position and crying for their mommies. Then yes absolutely.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
when it became respectable for the President of the United States of America to intimate that those who have supported and defended and voted for him are not patriotic and are racist. I will always defend the office of the Presidency I will no longer defend George Bush. I never spoke harshly of Clinton at the end of his Presidency and nor shall I speak ill of this President however I will express my disgust at this illegal immigration bill.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Reading the new immigration bill, specifically the "Z" Visa, doesn't ICE become more irrelevant and the past somewhat superfluous?
It appears that provided a person here illegally shows or displays a desire to obtain Z status, ICE goes home. Respectfully, am I wrong here?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
What is worse, ICE turns into a typical NannyState vehicle and has to assist much more than enforce. Only in D.C.
Under what framework are we to trust the future enforcement of illegal hiring practices and the enforcement of the border?
Why does it look like this enforcement has only occurred because the politcal machinery needs to make the appearance of seriousness for the purpose of passing this bill, as perceived by 70% of americans?
If a future president is not particularly interested in securing the southern border, what kind of self driven political bureaucracy will be able to continue on its own institutional inertia. Surely if bureaucracies of that nature can be designed for the lefts favorite programs, they can be designed in the same manner to enforce border security.
I believe that when the 6 year record of the Bush Administration on immigration enforcement is viewed in its entirety, what we see is a President with deep ambivalence towards enforcement which only turned around when the Administration realized it had to convince the base that it was serious about enforcement before they could advance their amnesty agenda. I seem to remember Karl Rove pretty much admitting this mistake a couple of years ago.
I remember year after year when the White House submitted proposed budgets with no or very trivial increased funding for enforcement either at the border or in the interior only to have that funding shoved down their throat by Congress.
It is impossible for me to believe that given the Administration's ambivalence towards enforcement that it will continue to enforce the law after the Administration gets the amnesty that it has been pushing for. They just have not done near enough to inspire or earn trust on this issue. And sadly the triggers are meaningless because the real amnesty occurs on the day the probationary Z-visas are issued.
Mr. Thompson,
Thank you for your post.
I am glad to know the WhiteHouse is paying attention to some of what is written here at RedState.
I'm glad someone from the WH is listening...
My ideal solution to the immigration dilemma would be to having roaming ICE agents rounding up illegals and sending them back to the home country. But since I'm like you (a realist), I concede that such a plan would never happen (not enough funding, and definitely not enough will power from Congress who would be seen as racist, even though the law makes no specific mention of any race, just any and ALL illegals, wherever they're from). By introducing such a force, we would essentially create a gestapo, and that's not something that people would appreciate.
So... here is the realistic solution, a two prong approach:
1) We actually strengthen and enforce the laws that are already on the books to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens. If they knowingly do, they should not only be fined, but also imprisoned. The whole "I didn't know that documents were forged" argument is used too often, therefore we help train HR personnel to recognize these documents. The onus should be on them. Vigilance from hiring personnel is necessary.
2) We actually create stronger borders. This is a two step policy. First, we create a high-tech fence along the entire length of our southern border, not just portions of the border as proposed by the current immigration proposal. We include cameras, manned stations distributed along the border. I would even make the fence electric, but that would not go over too well with the liberals. Second, we significantly increase the number of Border Patrol agents stationed at our borders. Not only that, but also give the agents more rights to use force against illegals (i.e., change the rules of engagement). Heck, if they have signs such as these at Area 51, why can't we put them on our southern border. I'm sure the fear of "deadly force" would dissuade some from crossing. The liberals and cases such as this one (where Border Patrol agents were imprisoned for 20 years just because they were doing their jobs) have undermined our national security. As a consequence, agents are now more scared to use force and also less people are choosing to join the Border Patrol for fear of imprisonment. What does this say to our neighbors?
If we dry up the jobs available to illegals, they will go home and also new ones are less likely to cross. This is the "Smoke Out" strategy. In addition, we need to get serious with our southern border. This includes making the aforementioned fence and increasing number of agents stationed there. It solves the problem without giving amnesty to illegals.
First, I am very grateful that there is someone at the White House who is at least willing to address our concerns.
Perhaps one of our legal beagles here on Redstate can answer this one for a layman: Just what is the definition of an "adminstrative arrest"? How is this different from a criminal arrest?
really, since it is not custodial, i.e., the arresting officer cannot hold you against your will. It is along the same lines as a citation. Proceeding administratively rather than criminally has its advantages, no right to counsel and limited process rights most importantly. But administrative penalties are usually limited to fines and apparently those fines are just considered a cost of doing business.
In Vino Veritas
According to the US Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants increased most rapidly during the same time frames cited in the charts I posted which are the subject of this thread. It would appear that the current strategy of immigration law enforcement doesn't seem to be working.
All you need is the will, it's not a matter of can.
And we need new laws for what? Why AMNESTY, that's what.
Build the fence fine employers, they rest will work out as the illegals "auto-deport" themselves.
the loop? Remember Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona. Will he be unable to arrest the illegals coming through his jurisdiction?
As it is, a federal only solution will cost billions, and arresting our own agents for enforcing the law is counter productive, ie the Compean and Ramos, if I'm not mistaken. This pending bill appears to put all the peanut butter on the feds to enforce the law. I note that the White House did not put into its calculations local and state efforts. So, I think the bill is short changing the process by not having the local and state input into this bill so that the peanut butter gets a good spread throughout the country.
The government didn't enforce immigration law in the past. Why should we believe you now?
We want separate bills. Secure the border first. Then we'll talk. It is already in your bill. It should be easy to do if you really intend on enforcing it. I bet you aren't. Prove me wrong.
Until then we are all wearing the sign on our back. "Kick Me. I'm a Citizen"
Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.
Consider for a second the complete unseriousness of the Bush administration in dealing with the illegal immigration problem using the current laws and enforcement opportunities afforded by information already in the possession of the Federal government.
One of the largest federal bureaucracies is the SSA which possesses lists of businesses which have submitted I9 employment verification forms for new employees and the SS numbers come back "unmatched". "Unmatched" can mean ether the submitted SSN numbers are invalid, in use in another area already, belong to a person has been reported as deceased, or any number of factors. Is anything done with data which shows a high probability that a business is hiring illegal aliens? No!
Does President Bush, through executive order, direct SSA send demand letters to those business with a large number of unmatched SSNs to please explain in 10 days or face a large fine? Or send the names and addresses of the businesses with a statistically large number of unmatched SSNs to ICE for field investigations of the businesses?
Simple steps that could be taken demonstrating a seriousness about the illegal immigration problem in this country which have not and are not being taken by President Bush.
The bottom line is the President has not been serious about using the tools in the form of laws already in the place to deal with the illegal immigrant problem, why should we the American people want to give him and his administration new tools which will not be used?
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
SteveLA, An excellent example of the unseriousness of this WH in enforcing existing laws.
Mr. Thompson, I am at a loss to comprehend how you can hold up the data correction of 159 to 844 arrests with a straight face. Out of 12 million? My first thought is that the WH would be embarassed and apologize for it's inattention to border security and vow to do better, but you apparently are proud of that record. I think that's all I need to know.
I appreciate you taking your time out to address the issue with RedState, but it appears you must think we are stupid. I can come up with no other explanation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060619-13.html
FACT: DHS Recently Proposed Its "No-Match" Regulation To Make It Easier For Employers To Verify Employment Eligibility And Help The Government Identify And Crack Down On Those Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Workers In Violation Of The Law. Millions of Social Security numbers provided by employers do not match the information in the Social Security Administration's (SSA) databases. In cases where an employer has ten or more employees with inaccurate information, the SSA sends the employer a "no-match" letter. DHS's proposed "no-match" regulation sets forth an employer's current obligations under the immigration laws when an employer receives a no-match letter and makes clear that employers who ignore the discrepancies between SSA databases and the information provided by their employees may be viewed under the law as knowing that the employees are illegal workers, making it easier for ICE to prosecute violators.
I believe this is the President following the intent of the writers of the constitution, as in working within the rule of law.
But no you think you have the answer, a simple swipe of the pen by the president and it's all taken care of, and since he hasn't done it, it's proof that he's undermining America.
Are there not already laws prohibiting the misuse of SSN's? Regulations and laws already on the books to deal with that issue?
Clearly the current system and laws are not working and the President has made proposals, such as making "Basic Pilot" mandatory as part of the employment process, he asked this of a Republican Congress and didn't get it.
When he was elected there were only 6 states where it was available, now it's available nationwide through his leadership.
So there is a proposal, made by the President to take care of this issue, it was proposed long ago, (actually it came with the amnesty of '86) and Bush has been pushing a long time for it to be mandatory on a national basis and has gotten nothing for it, not even the good will of his own party.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Ding...wrong. I instead think that the President could have done this with executive order on day one, two, three etc. of his Presidency. Instead now DHS gets around to thinking about regulations to do something about this issue. Why the wait? What has been more pressing than crafting an executive order to put a program to deal with "unmatched" SSN's in place? The absolute worse thing would have come about if this had been done earlier been a court challenge.
Is this a real move to do something about the issue or an act of political theater to make it actually look like the President actually is going to do something? The latter is the impression in most people, including my mind.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
So again I ask you why is it your premise that the President is undermining America without the issuance of an executive order?
I don't want to be stuck defending illegal immigration but I will defend the President. He HAS taken action, many, and it's just too trite to pretend that he hasn't because there is now bill out there that we all hate.
My read of the DHS thing was, and mind you that's not new it's old as you can tell from the link was that employers were skirting the issue not the government.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Because President Bush will not go down as running one of the most competent Presidencies in modern history. I'm not sure if the Bush Presidency will go down in history as a rival of the Carter years or not, but it will be a race to finish.
From an incompetent Federal response to Katrina..."Way to go Browine".
to
W's excellent adventure in Iraq..."Mistakes have been made" by the "Decider in chief" along with numerous other domestic blunders in between.
This is an administration run by an MBA President, and if this was the way a business was run, the BOD would be asking some hard questions right now of the CEO.
I have no faith, no confidence in the President to execute any new Federal program, including illegal immegration controls, worth a darn. The only shining example of a success from this administration is we have not been attacked again sense 9/11, and I would not credit great leadership from the President for this development. I would instead credit the hard work of the men and women of the FBI, CIA and a bunch of other three letter agencies.
When I read about the great new plan that DHS is coming up with, I wonder why it has taken so long to figure out there is a problem with the hiring of illegal immegration, and will the program be executed effectively. The answer given the track record of the Bush administration is no.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
"Employer no-match letters Prior to 2002, SSA sent letters only to employers if they submitted 10 or more unmatched SSNs and the wages earned by workers with unmatched SSNs represented more than 10 percent of payroll (SSA OIG 2002). Under these criteria, SSA sent between 40,000 and 110,000 letters annually to employers. SSA dramatically increased its use of no-match letters in 2002 by sending notices to all employers filing wage reports resulting in one or more unmatched SSNs. In 2002, SSA mailed letters to approximately 950,000 employers, each listing up to 500 unmatched SSNs"
http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued/npublications/recent/SSAnomatchreport.pd...
Well now, THIS sure looks like a proactive measure by the administration. This report is actually done to show that the administration is being punitive and too aggressive.
Steve, honestly I'm not trying to pick a fight, what I am doing is trying to show that the Big Guy is on our side and has been an active participant in the cause despite his personal view. That is a critical point I believe, rule of law over personal belief.
I ran this search in google and that report came up as the first few hits..."demand letters unmatched social security numbers"
I'm not trying to get over, I AM trying to get FACTS out into the emotional mess this debate has fostered.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Nope. It's not that they're not working, it's that they're not enforced.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
ha-ha stay out of it for now I'm doing research, can you believe, well of course you would, but I can't find data for the years 01, 02, 03, pertaining to enforcement! I'm getting all twisted up on the Whitehouse site about it... grrrr
I think I need a cold libation
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Takes about a year to arrive (if it arrives at all) and tells the employer they are not to terminate the employees on the basis of that letter. Employees who have likely moved onto other jobs by then anyway. Nice try.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
with info pertaining to that, I've not found THAT juicy tidbit anywhere so far.
Is that within the legal time frame? If so then how does that negate my argument about how DHS and Bush pushed for changes in the system so that employers would have to use a modern system for verification.
As to the verbiage of the letter, my understanding is that we are a nation of laws, the letter states this and the dismissal of a legal resident who has made a mistake verses an illegal who is using stolen information would subject the employer to possible legal action, so lets not be trite.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Most of the people on it didn't even work for him any more by the time he got the letter and they letter was not supposed to be grounds for termination anyway... so what can he do about it? It basically asks them to double check the numbers and get back to them. Maybe they send a second letter a few years later asking you to double check them again. I'm not sure what happens after that first letter, but it is safe to assume it isn't much (unless they need a photo op to show how strong they are on enforcement).
Our enforcement is constructed around photo ops and meaningless gestures. That's because nobody has an interest in actual enforcement. They just want to create the appearance of enforcement, when necessary, to win approval for amnesty and guest worker programs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Secure the borders and enforce existing laws. Am I naive in thinking this would work?
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
From the "look over there at that shiny object!" ( we got triggers) we have gone to "Who you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
I don't understand what the miscommunication is. Over and over we keep saying, "We don't trust you, give us a reason to trust you." And they keep coming back and tell us, "Hey, sure we haven't done a good job in the past but, we really mean it this time."
Do they not teach Aesop any more?
Bottom line: the amnesty crowd has not given up a thing. From the start they wanted amnesty. Name one thing they have given up in their quest to grant amnesty, just one.
Meanwhile, it's gone from 700+ miles to 370 miles of fence, it's gone from "get caught, get sent home" to "get caught, get help staying."
And it isn't just amnesty for the illegal immigrants--it's also amnesty for years and years of willful, intentional, and even brazen law-breaking by the business community; they get off the hook for the years of illegality as well. But they get an even better deal than the illegal immigrants! No back-taxes, no fines, no nothing will be done to those businesses who have purposefully broken the law and driven the problem we have now. NOT ONE THING!
While I understand this is a blog and all that, is this really the tone that Redstate considers acceptable with representatives of the Whitehouse?
Can't we raise it up a bit out of respect for the office if not the policy?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
We've given our government the benefit of the doubt for many years on amnesty. It's time to get down and dirty.
He who yells the loudest and the most often gets the attention.
Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.
We have been lied to and disrespected by the government.
Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.
2nd we the people have not been told exactly how long these 12 million illegals have under this legislation to sign up. I am curious do they have 12 months, 2 years, forever? I then am curious to know if there is a timeframe what will you do to those who do not come "out of the shadows"? deport them? I don't think so because I keep being told that we cannot do that. I guess then if there is no timeframe we can assume that there will continue to be large amounts of illegals coming into the country and that of course negates the triggers portion of the bill. I also would ask you who in the WH felt that an agressive campaign of insults would work to "shut up"(Lindsey Graham) the base because that person needs to be fired because it has only fed the fire in the hearts of the base who do not believe in this legislation. I would also say that we do not want the death penalty for someone who is trying to feed their family back home, we want the government for the people by the people to do what the people want and that is to protect and defend the sovereignty of the United States of America.
For 6 years the illegal immigration problem has gotten worse. There were many opportunities for the Bush administration to show that they were serious about enforcement, but as we all know we only saw token enforcement (especially in the last year or so once President Bush started pushing comprehensive immigration "reform"). We have heard you say you have enforced the laws, but we have not seen it.
Sorry, we now must verify before anything else happens. I've been on the record here and elsewhere about being supportive of amnesty - English proficiency, pay back taxes, fine, back of the line for citizenship, etc, but it's still amnesty in my book (and that's okay with me). However, we must secure the border FIRST, before anything else. The only way to verify that this or subsequent administrations will enforce the border is to get it done before we even start talking about what to do with those in the country already.
The solution? Don't push comprehensive "reform." Secure the border - that means a fence, more border patrol, the military if need be (to fight the drug gangs). After that is done, then we can start talking about what to do with those in the country.
PS - Do you think it is a problem when you have lost someone like me who supports legalization (though I think the guest worker program is just dumb)?
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
in responding to WH posts (and rightfully so), I will simply quote Hugh Hewett,
At this point I take out my Harriet Miers Fan Club charter membership card and put it on the table: This push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President. Much much worse than the Miers nomination on which you had many good arguments, or the ports deal, on which you had fewer. On this issue there is no place to stand, and you are asking your friends in the Senate to go down fighting for a bad bill. It is a bad bill because
...no one believes the government can conduct millions of background checks (many spokesmen for the bill don't even pretend to know where the paperwork will go!).
...No one believes the bill will halt the next 12 million.
...No one believes you are going to assure the fence gets built.
...No one believes that the employer verification system will get done or work when some half-assed version of it does get done.
...No one believes that the probationary visas don't automatically convert illegal aliens with few if any rights into Due Process Clause covered legal migrants, with a Ninth Circuit ready and waiting to keep them here for decades.
Emphasis and bullet points added by me.
The bottom line here, Mr. Thompson, is that neither the Administration nor the Congress have given us ANY reason to believe that any progress on enforcement will be forthcoming.
For all intents and purposes, the people who are leading on this bill are the same ones who sold Reagan down the river in 1986. There are some big differences this time around, however. First, Reagan had no history on which to judge the veracity of the claims of Congressmen and Senators who "swore" we would secure the borders and enforce the law. Second, President Bush is probably more pro illegal immigrant than Teddy Kennedy.
Fool me once, shame on me...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
In my past, the Republican party was the pro-business party. I found this to be a good thing since, without business, the unemployment rate would be quite high. I personally like being part of the economy, if only a small part.
Now this may not extrapolate out, but it has been my personal experience that most of those employing undocumented workers are business owners / managers who are Republican voters and contributors. The advantage in hiring undocumented workers is clear. Higher profits. In some cases, perhaps many cases, this means the difference between making a profit and not making one, paying taxes or not, business growth or not.
The dependence on undocumented workers has come about over a long period of time, but it is now deeply engrained in our economy. It hasn't been a case of planned exploitation but a case of incremental effort to compete and remain profitable. Consumers have been the primary beneficiaries. That's me and you.
Much of what I see written about this issue in the conservative blogs has to do with how these illegal immigrants may vote when they gain some legal status. I think it's important to look also at what sudden and severe enforcement will do to employers who are predominately Republican contributors and voters. Should such a move be a signal to the employers that they are no longer welcome in the Republican party? If not, then why should they bear the biggest burden of the new paradigm? Certainly not for a false sense of security. Real security lies as much in economic growth and stability as it does in immigration policy.
Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
Ronald Reagan
There are other issues as well. We need to stop the problem the same way it was created, gradually. Businesses by and large have used illegal immigrants as a quick easy fix to solving hard problems.
The problem is society is now in effect subsidizing those businesses by providing services to the immigrants that would otherwise be payed for through taxation. The other big problem is it plays upon the desire of some business owners to have a labor force they can be High Handed with. The illegal has little recourse in dealing with the employer. Thus the employer circumvents monstrous growth of U.S. labor law.
Instead of dealing with the real problems.
1. Providing means and incentive for businesses to increase productivity.
2. Revamping our legal system so it is more friendly to small business and product developers. I know people that have new products (a kitchen cleaner and a reach and pickup device) their whole focus is being a LLP importer. They don't even want to think about investing to build here.
3. Making our immigration system serve our purposes not other nations.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
4. Making our businesses competitive globally by leveling the playing field. For instance, alternatives to employer paid health care.
5. Recognition of the implications to national security of losing certain national capabilities to offshoring. Working within the free-trade farmework to address those implications.
that because the Federal Government has allowed business to continue to use illegal labor that is not covered under all of the labor laws that we Americans must abide by that we the American public must now deal with. I would argue that the illegality of what those businesses have done should be the first thing addressed such as fines and jail for the worst offenders. We are still a nation of laws and when laws are broken over and over from the businessman to the illegal worker we now have chaos. I don't feel the need for sympathy for the business who has made extra money off the backs of what really are "slaves" in this country because they have no recourse, so to me it is the ego of the business that should be deflated and by the way if that happens to hurt the economy in the short term the 2.5 trillion dollars it will cost the taxpayer in the long term will be well worth it.
But, I understand your point. It's not that I don't agree with your destination, just that I believe we must look at where we are coming from. If you could snap your fingers tomorrow and all the illegal aliens were gone, there would unquestionably be a sudden shock to our economy. We, as a country, would survive it. Many individual businesses might not. Dampened over time, it's more likely to be survivable by all.
You are arguing that you want to cut off the foot because the toe is infected. Shame on me for not wearing shoes. I think antibotics, though working more slowly, produce an effect that is, in the longer term, much more desirable. Integrating those people into a healthly economy over time will cost us all less that throwing them out now. But, I recognize that that is just my opinion.
And, by the way, it isn't the federal government that has let this happen or caused it. It's you and me. Everytime you buy vegetables at the grocer rather than go to the farmer's market, everytime you choose a hotel room based on price or tipped less than a decent amount at a restaurant. Bought a home lately or borrowed money on the increased value of the one you have? Taken your clothes to the cleaner instead of doing them at home? You participate every day in support of what you call slavery. You could argue that you don't have a choice but I will argue that you do.
One final question. What about the LEGAL people we exploit in this country? If these were 12 million citizens that we were discussing, would you even be writing here? If you answer yes, then you need to look around and decide how you feel about that group. What will be their cost to us taxpayers over the long term? How do you propose we help them out of their "slavery"?
The answer I like is opportunity and economic growth. You don't get that by ignoring the impact of your actions on business.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
At least the Romans had the sense (but not the will) to fight them. America is going to legalize them, give them welfare benefits, college tution and job preferences in hiring.
History shows us what's next.
"If history teaches us anything, its that history teaches us nothing" G.W. Hegel
before the building of the fence or enforcement of EXISTING laws would enable a few million more illegals time to come in and exacerbate the current disaster.
If I may ask what were deportation rates over that time period ?
And where were they deported to ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777