How To Do Workplace Enforcement

We need a better system for verifying whether a new hire is legally authorized to work in the United States. There is already an excellent model for a system of immediate workplace verification.



The system is on a federal government website called "(SCRA) Servicemembers Civil Relief Act."
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/home

(If the web address has changed, just google the website name that is in blue text).


This system already exists now. The existence of this system demonstrates that effective workplace verification is feasible and is essentially a matter of data entry.

Imagine this system adapted to verification of whether a person is legally authorized to work in the United States:

1) Enter name
2) Enter Green Card, Social Security, or visa number.

"Yes" Response: "This name and working permit number match those of a person authorized to work in the United States. However, the person in front of you must match the person in the pictures below." And below, there will be two pictures (side and front) of the person, together with any identifying marks.

If the pictures do not match the actual person in front the employer, the person may not be hired.

Very simple! The big advantage over the website based verification system is that employers will know immediately whether the employee's employment eligibility is questionable. Currently, in most cases, all employer can do is accept the new hire's (potentially fraudulent) documents and send them into the federal government.

The internet based verification system should virtually eliminate the use of fraudulent Green Cards and Social Security cards. The issuer of the fraudulent documentation would have to hack into the federal government database and replace the actual pictures of the individual those of the person who is trying to steal the identity.

Privacy concerns are minimal, because the user must already have the identifying information. The only additional information the user gets is whether the person is authorized to work, and the person's picture, which is merely the image of the face that person presents to the world everyday, so it is not private.

"No" Response: "This person is not in the database of persons legally authorized to work in the United States. Because there is a chance this result is in error due to a data entry problem, you may only employ this person provisionally, pending a manual recheck by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If upon manual recheck, the employee is proven to be unauthorized, that person shall be subject to arrest for violation of federal law."

This way, the federal government will only need to recheck those who insist that they should be in the database, and those who insist wrongly are subject to arrest, so by and large, only the innocent will insist.

Five years from the inception date of the system, a person who is not in the database will be barred from employment until the problem is cleared up. This is because there will be a low number of errors once the system is up and running. Everybody will be able to check for an error before they even show up to look for a job. Employees subject to an error will be able to clear things up through use of the phone, internet, and a visit to a local government office.

Well, you say, you don't trust the federal government to have a workable system. It could work if it were contracted out to a company such as Amazon.com or Google. These companies run MASSIVE e-commerce sites that have never been substantially hacked and are demonstrated to be capable of massively high volume.

(click on image to enlarge to readable size)

They can say it is not an amnesty, but apparently it is being perceived as an amnesty. Since many on the left will tell you that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist, I'll have to ask, why does this racist read The African Abroad? Because it is a good paper and it makes me feel good about the African community in the New York area.

What you have below is an article that merely recites the provisions of the current bill before the Senate (even crediting the New York Times for the summary) but has the headline "General Amnesty." If it is perceived as an amnesty, it might as well be an amnesty. It will trigger a greater wave of illegal immigration in expectation of the next amnesty, and it will be all but impossible to control our borders. All the so-called enforcement provisions of the new bill will be a joke.

Why Environmentalists Should Be Furious About Illegal Immigration

Hear Me Environmentalists! This environmentalist is warning that if you let "them" get away with the subverting and dismantling of the immigration laws, then the environmental laws are not safe, nor is any law.

Many laws passed by Congress are solely the product of shameless lobbying by special interests. Not so for the immigration law of 1986. The immigration law of 1986 was one of the few laws that was the product of a reasoned national debate, represented a national consensus, was bipartisan, and was an act of generosity and compassion. "They" eviscerated, subverted, shredded, violated, and evaded that law so that now we have at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. And if "they" can do that to the 1986 immigration law, they can do that to any law, including the environmental laws.

Who is "they"? "They" are the employers who make money off of hiring illegal aliens, those who claim it is racist to enforce the immigration laws (even though 80% of those admitted under the immigration laws are non-white), those who just don't agree with immigration laws and lobbied for their non-enforcement, and probably others.

If "they" can get the reasonable and duly enacted immigration laws "unenforced," then they can also get the environmental laws "unenforced." Just as there are many businesses that are making money off illegal immigration, and plenty of people who are ideologically opposed to not having an open border, so there are plenty of businesses that can make more money if they are free to dump or pollute, and plenty of people who are ideologically opposed to the environmental laws.

Yo environmentalists, this environmentalist is telling you right now that if you let "them" get away with the dismantling of the immigration laws, then the environmental laws are not safe, nor is any law. So please do not be paralyzed by political correctness and fears of being called a racist. Defend the republic by standing up and being counted. Contact your Congresspersons and tell them you are against the current dismantling of the immigration laws, and want the 1986 immigration law enforced!

We will have, we in fact do have, a "republic" in which the existence of a law is largely meaningless because constant high pressure tactics are needed if existing laws are to be enforced.

We are on the verge of decisively abandoning a fundamantal foundation of the republican form of government: that the laws will be upheld and enforced until they are changed by lawful means. The systematic non-enforcement of the immigration laws is a symptom of the decline of the republic of the United States. If the 1986 law is successfully overturned in 2007, no other reasonable and duly enacted law will be safe and it will be a significant step towards the end of the Republic of the United States.

For example, in the 1980s, the INS raided the fruit farms of California, which employ thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens. Well, these farms used their political clout to cause Senator Diane Feinstein to protest the raids as hurting California businesses. Never mind that these businesses were in obvious violation of the law.

If you refuse to or cannot pay an adequate wage to attract legal workers to your industry, then your industry should be relocated to a country where workers are willing to accept the wages offered-- that is how the poorer countries will develop!

For this reason, at least one of the industries held up as a reason for why we should reform the immigration laws is a crock. The California fruit industry should be allowed to wither on the vine and move to foreign countries where people are eager to work at the wages the industry can offer. Right now, we are growing fruit, but importing poverty. We should not have allowed it to exist in this country in violation of our laws, and Diane Feinstein was totally wrong to have done the bidding of the industry by urging non-enforcement of the immigration laws.

Part of the reason for writing a blog is that it helps a person think things through. The process of looking at the numbers carefully for my blog post of 6/1 has caused me to think that we should be letting in more people legally. Not as many as the open borders lobby wants, but I could see upping the average number from 977,000 to 1.1 million- contemporaneous with strict enforcement of the immigration laws.

We do allow in a reasonable number of people legally, but we should allow in more, LEGALLY. However, that is no reason to allow those who have broken the law to stay in this country, to break the law by hiring persons illegally present in this country, or to stand by while it is broken.

People may think it "makes sense" to allow the lawbreakers to stay here, but these are people who have intentionally violated the reasonable laws of our republic. In the past, people have broken the laws of their countries of origin to escape from their and get here. But we have not had people breaking the laws of our country to enter it. It is totally unacceptable to enter a republic by breaking its reasonable and duly enacted laws. It shows such a person is totally unfit to be a part of that republic. Such a person is a cancerous tumor in the body politic- if their scofflaw attitude spreads, all law is in jeopardy. For this reason, even if illegal immigrants are somehow allowed to stay, I would be adamantly opposed to any path to citizenship.

Ignorance: The United States Does Not Admit Alot of Immigrants Legally

Runaway slaves were "illegal" -Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez in an e-mail to me.

This is My America Too!! Why can't we give others a chance to be free!!! -"Americans in support of the illegal immigrants" website.


________________________________________________
Controlling immigration into the United States is in no way like slavery. In fact, native born African-Americans have been hurt quite severely by illegal immigration, but that is for another post.

And we give PLENTY OF OTHERS a chance to be free! The statement from "Americans in support" is moronic.

This post will be about how the number of lawful immigrants the United States allows to enter is reasonable.

Since 1989, the U.S. has issued an average of 977,000 Green Cards per year. 80% of those Green Cards are issued to people who do not come from the Canada, Europe or Russia- i.e. non-white. So do not charge that U.S. immigration policy is racist. On balance, it is totally non-racist!

1989	1,090,172
1990	1,535,872
1991	1,826,595
1992	973,445
1993	903,916
1994	803,993
1995	720,177
1996	915,560
1997	797,847
1998	653,206
1999	644,787
2000	841,002
2001	1,058,902
2002	1,059,356
2003	703,542
2004	957,883
2005	1,122,373

Those figures are available from the DHS (Office of Immigration Statistics) 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. That was released in November, 2006, so the 2006 figures presumably will not be ready until late 2007. I simply downloaded 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics from the Office of Immigration Statistics' website. In table 1, the Yearbook gives the number of people legally admitted to the United States for every year since 1820.

What percentage of Green Cards does the U.S. issue to people from Hispanic countries?

Green Cards Issued	Per	Year		2003	2004	2005
Mexico				114,758	173,711	157,992
Cuba				8,685	15,385	20,651
Dominican Republic				26,112	30,063	27,366
Central America				53,283	61,253	52,636
South America				53,946	69,452	100,811
Total Per Year				256,784	349,864	359,056

Over 15% of the Green Cards issued in any given year go to Mexico! Do not tell me that the United States discriminates against Mexico. That is a lie or a statement of ignorance. Approximately 30% of the Green Cards issued in any given year go to people from Hispanic countries! That is a totally fair percentage.

Those figures are also from the DHS. They are either from the 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics or from yearly reports titled "Annual Flow Report 200x: Legal Permanent Residents: (Year)." I had to type them in by hand, and noboby is paying me to do this, so if you want all the years, go check for yourself.

Is an average of 977,000 Green Cards per year reasonable?
This question is best answered by looking at how the United States compares to other countries. Different nations report immigration statistics differently, so it can be very tricky to compare them. Several spokespersons for the anti-illegal immigration side say that the United States admits more persons legally than the rest of the world combined. Among these persons is Lou Dobbs.

Statisticians at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have devoted substantial effort to cross-national comparisons of how many people the highly developed nations admit legally. So far, they have only published comparisons for the years 2003 and 2004. I have e-mailed them and asked when they will be publishing results for more years, and I never received a response.

So far, their published findings indicate that in the average year, the United States, with a legally present population of 288 million, admits more people on a per capita basis than most other wealthy nations. When the OECD compared the United States to a basket of wealthy nations with a combined total population of 506 million, the United States average of 977,000 is equal to 62% of the total that the other countries admit. 62% of 506 million is 314 million. So the United States admits as many people as if it were a nation of 314 million.


That is to be found in the OECD "International Migration Outlook 2006" table I.1 (page 30). You can only download that publication if you subscribe to OECD. But here is the table:


When you look at the table, you may protest that the United States only admitted 705,800 and 946,100 people lawfully in the years shown. First, you have to note that the U.S. data for 2003 and 2004 corresponds almost precisely to the data published by the United States Office of Immigration Statistics. So U.S. statistics are highly reliable. Second, you have to understand that the years 2003 and 2004 were exceptionally low years for numbers of persons admitted legally to the U.S. To remedy this, I am using the average number of persons per year granted Green Cards from 1989-2005. Third, even if some of the other countries in the table were admitting exceptionally low numbers of persons in the years covered by the table, other countries may have been admitting large numbers, so discrepancies even out amongst the 16 other countries represented in the table.

I am saying, compare the average of 977,000 people per year given legal Green Cards by the U.S. to what looks like an average of 1.55 million people granted lawful permanent residence by 16 other nations with a total population of 506 million. The United States certainly is not put to shame by the other nations.

The number of persons granted Green Cards by the United States is within the realm of reasonableness. You may think the U.S. should allow in more immigrants legally, but U.S. law and policy is not totally unjust or wrong.