Thread: Two member of the U.S. House voted against E-verify

Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-557

Yes, this was reported on Lou Dobbs yesterday and I am wondering WHY Ron Paul would do this? Unfortunately, it was too late to call his office but I plan on doing so first thing Monday.

Originally Posted by Anna-Anna

Yes, this was reported on Lou Dobbs yesterday and I am wondering WHY Ron Paul would do this? Unfortunately, it was too late to call his office but I plan on doing so first thing Monday.

If you get an answer, would you please post it? If you don't, will you please tell us that also?

I would impagine it has something to do with the e-verifying AMERICANS also, not just immigrants. I think it should be used just for immigrants.
Freedom21.com shows a ligitamate argument agasint e-verify the way it is written today. If it was just for immigrants it would be different. I am confused on this issue.

"The consensus at the beginning of the year was that Congress would require every employer in the country to use [E-Verify] by the end of the year. Since then, flaws in the E-Verify database and tracking system have come to light and it has become more clear that 'internal enforcement' of immigration law means tracking and databasing all Americans. ... A national E-Verify system would be used to give the federal government direct regulatory control over law-abiding Americans. Federal authorities would use it to control not just work, but housing, financial services, health care, and access to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms -- and these are just the obvious things."

I would impagine it has something to do with the e-verifying AMERICANS also, not just immigrants.

If this is what it takes, they can e-verify me too. I guess that's just the way I feel about it.

I can't believe that Ron Paul voted against E-verify. That is wild.

Well, I don't care if they want to E-verify me, but I'll be damned if I am going to subject myself to any bio-ID. To hell with that. The info that an e-verify would provide to the government is info they already have on me. If I give them bio information, then I will become a slave.

I hope it is just that Mr. Paul pushed the wrong button in his vote.

How in the world would the E-verify program be successful if it was only used for immigrants ? We don't have a problem with immigrants. Immigrants obey our laws and use the system to earn citizenship.

The problem is illegal aliens that use ficticious documents to gain employment. The only method of discovering they are illegal is to verify their social security number. Because they use false documents, they are counted as legal citizens and would NEVER be discovered by any system that merely checks the status of immigrants.

The system is relatively error free. Many of the errors are caused by women not changing their married name or minor clerical errors. The law states you CAN"T fire an employee simply because the E-verify system fails to immediately confirm his/her social security number. Everyone is given an opportunity to correct any error.

Only those that use a ficticious SSN will be found out.Of course that is also counted as an error. So, the system can't be 110% error free, unless NO ONE used false documents.

Lou Dobbs states thet data base is 99% error free. Businesses that use it generally get a reply within one minute.

E-verify is working in AZ and will would nationally.

Originally Posted by MW

Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-557

************************************************** ******
I will watch for his article on why he voted no, until then, I assume this is a part of the reason.

(Read the comments section, Some supporters are asking why he voted against it and other supporters are answering that question.)

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/56870

It's like voting, for sonmething you believe in and the Bill also says, are you for losing all your freedoms? He is a Constitutionalist, so if it goes against the Constitution in any way, he will vote "No". The Real ID leads to a global biometric system. Many Congressmen just vote and don't explore the bill, he does...

Most Bills Include Other issues In It That He Oppose.

Ron Paul will vote no if other things he doesn't approve of are also in that Bill, in this case from my investigating, he is against the Real ID and that was in it. Some think that will make ground for this:

"Together, DHS, AAMVA and ICAO are fulfilling the three elements necessary for a global biometric system. The fact is, whether it is your intention or not, by including Sections 201 and 203 into the SAVE Act, you are aiding this international ID effort. This won't increase security, but rather prepare us for a tyranny unknown in human history. "

He also think it puts the problem of illegals on the backs of employeers and not on the illegals.

This article tells why some would oppose it

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom105.htm

AMERICAN POLICY CENTER OPPOSES S.A.V.E. ACT

By Tom DeWeese
February 24, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

February 22, 2008

Mr. Roy Beck Numbers USA 1601 N. Kent Street Suite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22209

Dear Roy:

As we agreed during our conference call in December, I want to fulfill on my obligation to address our concerns with Sections 201, (Mandatory Employment Authorization Verification through the E-Verify System) and 203 (Establishment of Electronic Birth and Death Registration Systems) of the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act. H.R. 408

First let me reiterate that I have great respect for the job Numbers USA has done in defeating the amnesty bills. We are certainly on the same page in the battle to stop illegal immigration. We agree with efforts to enforce the laws and we even agree with your stand on "attrition through enforcement." I am a major proponent of efforts to take away the incentives and government handouts which attract illegals to this country. And I believe that by doing this it will not be necessary to load 20 million illegals on buses and ship them out - it will happen automatically as we have seen in several communities which have cracked down.

Our differences are in the need for government data banks which snare all Americans in their nets in order to find the few law breakers. I fully accept your claim that you aren't interested in creating a National ID. I accept that your motivation is to protect this country. However, I think that in your zeal to achieve those goals you are helping to create that very National ID system.

Freedom is a very difficult thing to protect. I suppose the definition of freedom can be twisted to accept anything in its name. Many believe that freedom means being safe. Many now believe that creating a national matrix to document our every movement is freedom.

A very wise friend of mine just related a bit of a parable to me that I think puts the situation well into perspective. She asked me this question: Do you know why Zebras have stripes? My answer was - for camouflage. She said, do you see black and white in the landscape of Africa? The stripes don't blend in. The fact is, when a lion (the predator) seeks to capture a Zebra (the prey) he focuses on one animal from the herd, chasing it down until it drops from exhaustion.

When a herd of Zebras runs to get away from the lion, the stripes make it absolutely impossible to focus on just one animal. Therefore the lions can't detach just one from the herd. The stripes are the Zebra's protection.

It would be to the great advantage of the lion to have a system to focus on one Zebra - a chip, an ID card, some way to break it from the herd. On the other hand, it would be a great disadvantage to the Zebra to have such a system of identification.

The question of whether a National ID is good or bad is really a question of who is the predator and who is the prey. In the case of illegal immigration clearly those of us who want to rid the nation of illegals are the predators. So it is easy to support such means to rid us of this threat. Some of us may even take pride in being able to "show our papers" to prove "we are American citizens." It's pretty compelling - until the same system is used to make us the prey.

That is my fear, and that is why I oppose any excuse to create even a small piece of a National ID databank system. Like you, I certainly have political enemies. Someday I will certainly be the prey.

Once begun, even for an honorable purpose, how can the system be controlled? Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has said, "Again, eventually, this might allow us to do double-duty or triple duty, have the same license also be used to cross the border, and be used for a whole host of other purposes where you now have to carry different identification." Could it be that those other purposes won't match what you are hoping to accomplish? Could it be that once such a system is in place it will be out of our control?

Congressional testimony by Professor Ben Shneiderman of the University of Maryland explains in great detail the problems inherent in trying to integrate existing data banks as a means to guarantee identification.

"While most proposals have been well intentioned, some have been misguided in that they overlook the potential for unintended consequences or underestimate the technical challenges and risks inherent in their implementation."

Professor Shneiderman, an expert in human-computer interaction, went on to say: "A national ID system requires a complex integration of social and technical systems, including humans to enter and verify data, plus hardware, software and networks to store and transmit. Such socio-technical systems are always vulnerable to error, breakdown, sabotage and destruction by natural events or by people with malicious intentions.

For this reason, the creation of a single system of identification could unintentionally result in degrading the overall safety and security of the nation, because of the unrealistic trust in the efficacy of the technology...

We must ask whether there is now a secure database that consists of 300 million individual records that can be accessed in real time? The government agencies which come close are the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, neither of which are capable of maintaining a network that is widely accessible and responsive to voluminous queries on a 24 hour by 7 days a week basis."

No matter how much we may desire a quick, easy solution to deal with the issue of illegal immigration; no matter how well intentioned we may be to enforce tough laws to make it happen, sometimes such actions are worse than the problem they seek to solve. So it is with using federal data banks to establish "verifiable" Identification.

Moreover, the E-Verify System is not designed, nor ready for the massive accessibility required to meet the requirements of Section 201. The SS data bank is dirty. And it was not created for the purpose of authenticating citizenship.

But you argue that the E-Verify System is already in existence and therefore not helping to create a National ID Card. Consider this congressional testimony by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): "Under the newly announced changes, the Department of Homeland Security will (1) greatly expand E-Verify, (2) raise fines against employers by 25 percent, (3) increasingly use criminal action against employers, as opposed to administrative action, (4) add to the numbers of databases E-Verify checks by including visa and passport databases, (5) ask states to "voluntarily" allow DHS access to their motor vehicle databases, and (6) use an "enhanced photograph capability" that will allow employers to check photographs in E-Verify databases. These do not resolve the many problems already in E-Verify; instead, the Department of Homeland Security has made the employment eligibility verification worse."

The fact is the Real ID Act is not going to just help create a NATIONAL ID, instead it is helping to create an INTERNATIONAL Biometric ID Card. The world is being enrolled into a single global biometric ID system through documents purported to establish and authenticate identity - passports, driver's license Social Security card and others.

On March 1, 2007 REAL ID's "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" was issued, revealing REAL ID's global biometric connection. The three main entities driving this system are: The Department of Homeland Security, The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, (AAMVA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

AAMVA is an international association of motor vehicle and law enforcement officials and is responsible for international biometric driver's license ID card standards and an international information sharing agreement.

ICAO monitors travelers, designed biometric "e-passports" required for "Visa Waiver Nations" and is affiliated with the United Nations.

Together, DHS, AAMVA and ICAO are fulfilling the three elements necessary for a global biometric system. The fact is, whether it is your intention or not, by including Sections 201 and 203 into the SAVE Act, you are aiding this international ID effort. This won't increase security, but rather prepare us for a tyranny unknown in human history.

I believe that you are honestly trying to create a method by which Identification can be verified. However, it appears you have accepted the premise that the Driver's License is the proper means of identification. In fact it is not. The driver's license is strictly an authorization to drive on American streets and should stay that way. To enforce an ID through DMVs means empowering a hoard of state government employees who were never supposed to have such power, allowing them access to information they aren't supposed to have and in so doing, creating a false sense of security that simply isn't valid.

In order to protect the privacy of the American people it is essential that we decouple identification from driver's licenses.

The only proper government entity specifically designed to have such information and responsibility is the U.S. Department of State. It alone should have the responsibility to create documents that establish and authenticate identity and that monitor and permit border crossings. And that is really what we are talking about here - border crossings, legal or illegal.

In fact, the State Department is now developing a new passport "card" that possibly could be used to satisfy citizen status that you seek under SAVE. It is less than a full passport and it comes in a wallet size that could be easily carried just as the driver's license. While it is true that the Card contains an RFID chip (not to our liking) the chip contains no personal information - only a unique number linking the card to stored records contained in secured government databases. The passport Card currently is not valid for flying, but that could be fixed.

I don't specifically advocate use of such a card for many of the same reasons argued here. But, if we are determined to go down the road of government documentation of American citizens, then something on the lines of the passport Card is preferable to creating a vast new system through state DMVs, as long as its purpose is very narrow and strictly enforced so as not to be expanded for secondary uses.

As I have stated before, we have no problem with attempts to strengthen efforts to enforce immigration laws. But these should include building the wall; deploying troops if necessary; supporting the Border Patrol; detaining illegals for court appearances; denying services like schools, hospitals and welfare to illegals; denying citizenship to the new born of illegals; denying college tuition discounts to illegals; and prosecuting sanctuary cities.

None of these things require the establishment of databases. Recent history has shown that removing such incentives in communities has resulted in lower illegal populations. They leave voluntarily.

Simply looking to punish businesses by making them the first line of defense when the federal government refuses to do its job by enforcing the items listed above, is cowardice and grossly unfair. It puts a burden on both employers and potential employees (a vast majority of whom are law abiding Americans) rather than putting the burden where it belongs - on illegals.

As we seek much needed solutions to the very real threat of illegal immigration, we need to disengage from the politics of fear. We are being given a false choice in the immigration war. We are being told that we must sacrifice freedom so that we may have order and security. It's simply not a true choice.

As Katherine Albrecht, author of the book "Spychips" wrote, "One of the most surveilled people in history were the Soviets under communist rule. During Stalin's decades-long reign of terror and the KGB era that followed, government agents could intercept and read mail, listen in on phone calls, and plant informants to probe their neighbors' political views and assess their loyalty to the state.


The surveillance was near complete, but did the watchful eye of the state keep the Soviet people safe? Hardly. It seems no coincidence that history's most watchful regime was also one of its most deadly. Between 1917 and 1987, the Soviet government killed over 60 million of its own citizens - more than any other government in the 20th Century."

Freedom is a difficult concept to retain. We live in dangerous times indeed and we must be very careful in our actions as we seek to achieve certain goals. Just because the technology exists, does not mean that it is the solution to our problem. Nor does its existence require us to use it, especially if such use will make this or other problems worse. This is the case with integrating unrelated, and poorly verified data bases which always has unintended consequences.


I believe Sections 201 and 203 of the SAVE Act are helping to create parts of a matrix that will lead to a National ID system which will destroy our liberty. Those are the very liberties you see as threatened by illegal immigration. Illegal immigration can be stopped - but if allowed to start, a National ID will be forever. In such a system today's predators will be tomorrow's prey.

For these reasons, the American Policy Center and others are now prepared to resume our fight to oppose the SAVE Act

i have no problem with being e-verified. and i can provide proof if i have to