No prosecutions under sanctions law until March

Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 17, 2008

There will be no prosecutions under the employer-sanctions law until after March 1, under an agreement reached in federal court Wednesday, while a federal judge promised to rule on the landmark hiring law by early February.

The agreement buys another month before any employer could be charged with knowingly or intentionally hiring an illegal worker, and buys more time for U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake to weigh the merits of the two-week-old law.

But because it still applies to any complaints filed as of Jan. 1, it gives "cold comfort" to the business and civil-rights groups that are fighting the law, said attorney Jonathan Weissglass, representing a trio of Hispanic civil-rights groups.

Wake has been presiding over a series of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act.

Even as the courtroom arguments proceeded, lawmakers introduced a series of bills that would amend the portions of the law that have drawn the most criticism both inside and outside the courtroom.

The bills are sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including two Republicans who voted for the original legislation and have since said that they regretted their votes. The bills have yet to be scheduled for public hearings.

In the courtroom, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the law provides no due process for employers, depriving them of their constitutional right to answer government charges that they knowingly or intentionally hired illegal workers.

The law requires all new hires to be screened through a federal computer-based program called E-Verify. It checks the validity of a new hire's Social Security number and refers to a Department of Homeland Security database to see if the hire is eligible to work in the U.S.

If the system issues a "non-confirmation" letter, it is the employee's responsibility to fix any errors. But the employer doesn't get a say, argued attorney Louis Moffa Jr.

"The employer has no right to challenge the non-confirmation," Moffa said. That, he said, is denial of due-process rights.

Attorneys for both sides seemed to agree that the law extends to all employees in a workplace, not just those hired as of Jan. 1 and subject to screening through the E-Verify system.

That argument hinges on the definition of "employ," as the law states "an employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien."

The attorneys arguing to overturn the law say that means anyone who is employed by a business, and state Solicitor General Mary O'Grady generally agreed.

Wake was visibly struggling with that position, noting that a reading of the entire law would suggest lawmakers intended it to apply only to new hires.

The word "employ," he said, is "exquisitely ambiguous," noting that dictionaries give it two meanings: to hire and to utilize.

He seemed to suggest that the Legislature could resolve that ambiguity by clarifying the language.

A bill introduced Wednesday would do just that. House Bill 2346 would change the law to state that an employer shall not "hire" an unauthorized alien, striking the verb "employ."

Ever since the sanctions bill became law in July, attorneys for the business and civil-rights groups have argued that it is unconstitutional because it inserts the state into an area of employment regulation that belongs only to the federal government.

The state Attorney General's Office has countered that the Arizona law correctly uses the one exception in the federal law left to the states: sanctions on business licenses.

Speaking of BIGots:

http://www.scminutemanproject.com/mexica.htm

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/224084.php

State lawmaker wants Arizona to run a foreign worker program
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.07.2008

PHOENIX -- Unwilling to wait for a federal fix, some Southern Arizona lawmakers want the state to run its temporary foreign worker program.
The proposal crafted by Sen. Marsha Arzberger, D-Willcox, would let companies which are suffering a "labor shortage'' to seek permission from the state Industrial Commission to bring in their own workers from Mexico. It even would have the state provide identification cards to the foreigners given permission to work here.

"The federal government has not met the responsibility to come up with comprehensive immigration reform,'' she said.
"Our economy is hurting,'' Arzberger continued. And she said many firms have found themselves without the workers they need.

SB 1482 has drawn a number of cosponsors, including many of the legislators who represent the border area. And even Senate President Tim Bee, who did not sign on as a sponsor, said he supports the concept of a legal guest worker program.

Read more in tomorow's Arizona Daily Star

Yeah it seems that I did, read the Political thread

http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/102800.asp

Social Security Agreement with Mexico Released After 3-1/2 Year Freedom of Information Act Battle


Illegal Mexican Workers Could Receive Billions of Dollars from U.S. Social Security System

January 4, 2007 (Washington, DC) – After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government made the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group.

The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund.

A loophole in current Social Security law could allow millions of today's Mexican workers to eventually collect billions of dollars worth of Social Security benefits for earnings under fraudulent or "non-work authorized" Social Security numbers, putting huge new pressures on the Social Security Trust Fund.

If an illegal worker working in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number through guest worker immigration legislation, the Totalization Agreement, or perhaps just over time, that worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once he or she has met eligibility requirements.

In addition, that worker could be able to claim credits for work performed while in the U.S. illegally. The SSA maintains an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages that cannot be posted to individual workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number. Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number – whether a legal citizen or not – wages earned while in the U.S. unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account.

The Congressional Research Service reports the earnings suspense file currently stands at approximately $520 billion. According to the congressional testimony of SSA Inspector General Patrick P. O'Carroll in February 2006, "We believe the chief cause of wage items being posted to the earnings suspense file instead of an individual's earning record is unauthorized work by non citizens."

The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without Congressional vote, either House of Congress would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it.

"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy – yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League. "Our 1.2 million elderly members didn't sacrifice through difficult times so we could fund millions of workers who crossed the border and decided to work here illegally."

The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S.

For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.

But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non-government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest.

"I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the U.S. Government about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement," said Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.). "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the information regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long."

According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040.

I see nothing wrong with this. Provided all those that want SS benefits agree to pay all the other taxes they skipped out on. Fed, state, local have not been paid or paid at fraudulant rates. File 1040 returns for the years claimed. Pay the taxes and fines due and make all else right.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/226719.php

Entrants advised: Keep silent, avoid deportation

The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.25.2008

PHOENIX — Immigrant-rights advocates are giving a key piece of advice to help illegal immigrants avoid deportation — remain silent.

The advice is being given out at monthly forums organized by at least three pro-immigrant community groups. The forums, which attract hundreds, are held to tell immigrants what the laws are, what their rights are and to combat racial profiling.

Immigrants who attend are given pamphlets called, "En boca cerrada, no entran moscas," a popular Spanish phrase that means "Flies can't enter a closed mouth."

"Silence is the most important right. Remain silent," says the four-page pamphlet, which is published by Somos America, Radio Campesina and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
The pamphlet says that under the law, it's the job of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to prove that someone is not legally in the country. The pamphlet includes a card that can be handed over in case of arrest by an immigration officer.

It says, "I am asserting my constitutional right to remain silent. I will only tell you my name. I will not answer any other questions. I demand my right to be represented by an attorney (and) to make a telephone call."

Magdalena Schwartz, a Mesa pastor who is heavily involved in the immigrant community, said she has heard from at least five people who were stopped by police in the last month and remained silent when questioned about their immigration status.

"All they got was a ticket," she said. "It's preventing people from being deported because they know their rights now and they remain silent."

Critics say the advice to remain silent amounts to helping people who have broken the law.
"It shows blatant contempt for the rule of law in this country and … for local police working with federal authorities to clean up this mess," said Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a civilian border-watch group.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a legal group in Washington, D.C., that advocates enforcement by police of federal immigration laws, said he doesn't like the community groups' approach, even though he agrees it's within their rights.

This is funny. On one hand you got most everyone saying that the laws are not being enforced. And that is what caused this mess. But on the other groups are telling people how to continue breaking the law. Perhaps a better question to ask is do you support lawlessness or the upholding of the law?

Who are you talking to, Davdah?

Generally referencing the article. Many people on this board complain about the laws that were never enforced. In the next breath they would support this sort of behavior. The phrase comprehensive immigration reform gets tossed around so much but never any details given. Thats the other popular exclamation. It all boils down to one of two things. We either ship them home or let them stay. Either way there will be severe consequences. But at least people should be honest about which side of the fence they are on. Either admit to supporting illegal aliens and their endeavors or support removing them.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
... The phrase comprehensive immigration reform gets tossed around so much but never any details given. Thats the other popular exclamation. It all boils down to one of two things. We either ship them home or let them stay. Either way there will be severe consequences. ...

This line of thinking is the main culprit. In any aspect of life when only "two extreme choices" are being presented, "none-of-the-above" or "do-noting-at-all" becomes the most prevalent option.

At least in my humble capacity, I gave my own suggested solutions in detail somewhere along this four-page thread. Oh, I happened to be discussing the same thing with you thereat.

Oh yes, I remember that. The problem with your plan is it still depended on voluntary compliance by the illegal. They didn't abide by the law to begin with so I doubt they would under a new set of rules. With yours it also required a large increase in enforcement personnel. To go after the criminal element would require more people and more training in close quarters combat.

The issue requires something extreme. If we continue this one step forward two back approach we'll have 50 mil illegals in a few years and a bigger problem. The only compromise I can see is with people who were not EWI and can prove an honest life. Couple that with a demonstrated need for their presence. A need that is a little more significant than picking fruit. A doctor, engineer, or mathematician can be given a deportation waiver. Anyone else would have to go. What I proposed during the prior discussion wouldn't require an increase in personnel. All could be done silently over the internet. No blazing guns or pregnant mothers in detention. Take away their ability to keep a job and the majority will self deport. Its that simple.

Whatever happened to the tradition of hospitality, of welcoming? These folks did not come here with the intention of causeing harm, they did not come here because they were selfish, they came here because there were jobs that were not being filled because our population were not willing to do these jobs. Some states project a labor shortage of 100's thousands in the near future because the birth rate is not sustaining our desired growth. I worked in the meat packing industry for 30 years. I know our population was not willing to come to work in hot, wet and cold conditions. Yes, if the pay was enough they would come. However, to be competitive the wages went down instead of up, because IBP came on tbe scene and broke the back of the union and lowered the wages in the whole industry. So in fact, the unintended consequences of businessmen lowering costs to the consumer by lowering wages and driving the traditional employee out of the labor market may in fact have resulted in the draw for new labor from the South through our porous border which we let happen and it resulted in the problem we have today. 18,000,000 people living in the shadows. Now some people want to make life so hard on the undocumented that they can't stand it and they hope it will force them to return to their home country. The unintended consequences here may be much different and be of great harm. Now, is this the way to treat people. Did you Mom teach you how to treat people. Yes, send the felons back, unless the felony is getting 3 tickets for driving without a licence, (we won't let them have one so to live they drive anyway), and keep the ones that only want to provide for their families. A new administration will make this happen because Obama, Clinton, and McCain all support reasonable comprehensive reform and as a bonus they all 3 support the Dream Act. Lets get off this biggoted attitude and do the positive things that will be better for everyone.

Great post, Chuck. My sentiments exactly.

18mil? I thought it was 12. Ok, who looked the other way? fess up.

Chuck, the wages in those jobs went down because of exploited labor. If they were not able to come the employers would be faced with one of two options. Option one is increase the wages and increase the cost to the consumer. Or, find other ways to lower costs. This is what happens in every other industry not exploited with illegal labor. Meat or silicon chips its all the same. The real consequence was the creation of a financial underclass. That undervaluation has a trickle up affect that negatively impacts the entire economy. How is someone who makes 1/2 what they should contributing to the positive increase in the economy? They can't. The only benefactor is the employer. He may get a fatter margin but it is offset by the lower spending power of his illegal employees. Add to that the social services and other costs at tax payer expense. No one wins.

Kindness won't fix it. Reagan's amnesty back in the 80's wasn't that great. The illegals who did come forward and got GC's also went back to their employers demanding more pay. Did they get it? No, they got a pink slip. Being legal they qualified for welfare. In CA it caused a gigantic increase in the welfare roles. In simple terms if Jose who made 1.00 an hour comes to San Diego and makes $5.00 it may seem on the surface he made out. But in truth he took a job that should be paying 10.00 an hour. Those other $5.00 are lost to the economy each and every hour. He has to buy things at the 1st world rate based on a 2nd world salary.

You worked in meat packing. Take what you made per hour 30 years ago. Adjust it for inflation alone for those 30 years. I bet it would be a lot more than what you are getting now. That is how it hurt you. You should be making double what you are. But you're not because the employer knows he can get labor at half what it should be. The only bigotry is the employers who take advantage of people.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Oh yes, I remember that. The problem with your plan is it still depended on voluntary compliance by the illegal. They didn't abide by the law to begin with so I doubt they would under a new set of rules. With yours it also required a large increase in enforcement personnel. To go after the criminal element would require more people and more training in close quarters combat.

The issue requires something extreme. If we continue this one step forward two back approach we'll have 50 mil illegals in a few years and a bigger problem. The only compromise I can see is with people who were not EWI and can prove an honest life. Couple that with a demonstrated need for their presence. A need that is a little more significant than picking fruit. A doctor, engineer, or mathematician can be given a deportation waiver. Anyone else would have to go. What I proposed during the prior discussion wouldn't require an increase in personnel. All could be done silently over the internet. No blazing guns or pregnant mothers in detention. Take away their ability to keep a job and the majority will self deport. Its that simple.

Increase in personnel? Where did I say that? What I said was that the same personnel but with "redirected targets."

That instead of conducting raids on workplaces like meatpacking plants, computer components assembly, restaurants, laundromats, construction, etc. or early morning raids of homes with sleeping families, why don't they prioritize to round up the more than 600,000 fraudsters, felons, and criminals who have outstanding orders of removal who still mingle with us everyday?

Your pure reliance on I-9 or E-verify to serve as a magic potion in solving this very complex mess is the other culprit - it's a complete nonsense bordering on stupidity.

That, again, is what I called a pirate's one-eye view of the very complex problem of immigration. Because aside from employment, aliens are coming here for FAMILY REUNIFICATION. You are silent on this second aspect of the root of immigration causes.

So, okay, if worksite enforcement will really be conducted in earnest, it's but reasonable supposed to be to also revamp the family-based visa process to untangle the common hitches and restructure the unrealistic annual caps. But do you think this is necessary? I doubt it.

One more thing. The employment eligibility verification facility that's being offered by the government to businesses, by itself, is also flawed. It helps to determine who should be hired and not. But no help is being given to ensure that enough workers are available in the labor market pool.

Again, I'll speak from my own perspective. There are many types of businesses as you very well know. For example as you said before you're engaged in a house rental and restaurant businesses. In these types of jobs, workers can be trained in a few hours or let's say a couple of days and they'd be on their own. In case after a week they left, they can easily be replaced by the next batch of people, trained then leave, again replaced, and so on. No dramatic impact on your businesses will be felt in this constant shuffle.

Compare this with someone whose business is service-oriented or consultancy-based, where the training required stretches for a certain number of months or longer. Then after the completion of the training, the worker will just leave, anyway s/he is a permanent resident or a USC so there's no problem to land another job. What's the impact?

E-verify for me is good, only if the playing field is leveled first. Meaning, okay, reform the whole system comprehensively first where no working man or woman is perceived to be in the labor market illegally. Then in that case if a worker, still, is applying for a job with a bogus documentation, then the fault is already on him or her. S/he should not only be denied employment but reported to the authorities.

Sadly, in the present dispensation, E-verify is being viewed as a cure-all potion with the exaggerated expected outcome to be delivered. Particularly by someone like you who thinks that after what you called "drying up of jobs," undocumented aliens will self-deport in droves.

Ah well, what more can I say? You may not notice it, but when you have a problem with your system and you needed an assistance a heavily accented Indian, Chinese, or Filipino customer representative will walk you through on the phone. Or when you have questions about your Chase or American Express accounts, the same thing happens.

E-verify and the worksite raids, for me, aside from not delivering any goodies for the serious immigration problem solution, just give instead a self-inflicted, if destructive, blow to the very basic principles of American Capitalism.

The personnel issue would be just that. Your average officer is not heavily trained in apprehension of hardened criminal types. Their usual catch of the day is the field workers. They may throw a bottle or rock but in most circumstances don't shoot back. The dealers and coyotes do. At a minimum most would need more training for the war zone they would be in.

Family reunification. I am silent mostly because all parties to the unification are in the same status. As a family they can go back just as they came here. Simple enough I think.
The idea of granting special privilege due to someone being born here who shouldn't have been is where we part ways the widest. It seems you want to keep that as the guarantee. I see it as a law breaking motivator that needs removed.

I agree the I-9 is a failure. But not because of any inherent defects. It did manage to show the lawless nature of all those who didn't abide by its terms. Hence the reason we need something that gives an immediate response. Something that will become a real deterrent to hiring an illegal. Something that will have the capability of raising a flag on the spot when an employer tries to bend the rules. That is the other assumption we disagree on. The assumption should not be that everyone is legal. That is how we got to where we are now. Illegal until proven legal is what we need. The technology is there to use. All it would take is a slight tweaking of the same system used to track passports and that would do it.

Please, customer service from afar! Worst thing ever. I can't tell you how many accounts I have canceled because I can't understand what they are saying. Chase, don't have one. Amex, yes but rarely used. Never had to call them yet. If I do and its not queens English, to the shredder with the gold and blue.