Thread: Barletta knocks immigrant status bill (E-verify)

10:06 PM

Barletta knocks immigrant status bill

Lawmaker says feds’ “E-Verify’’ system would undermine state, local governments’ authority.

JONATHAN RISKIND Times Leader Washington Bureau



WASHINGTON – A proposal by a powerful House Republican to establish a mandatory federal system requiring businesses to verify a potential hire’s immigration status would gut the enforcement powers of states and localities, says Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Hazleton.

The freshman lawmaker, who is continuing in Congress a focus on the immigration issue that began when he was mayor of Hazleton, is criticizing legislation unveiled last week by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas.

The proposal by Smith, not considered a liberal on the issue of immigration reform, would turn the voluntary “E-Verifyâ€

[quote="topsecret10"]10:06 PM

Barletta knocks immigrant status bill

Lawmaker says feds’ “E-Verify’’ system would undermine state, local governments’ authority.

TOO DAMN BAD BARLETTA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jobs in American belong to American citizens PERIOD! Get that through your THICK HEAD!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by FreeRideIsOver

Originally Posted by topsecret10

10:06 PM

Barletta knocks immigrant status bill

Lawmaker says feds’ “E-Verify’’ system would undermine state, local governments’ authority.

TOO DAMN BAD BARLETTA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jobs in American belong to American citizens PERIOD! Get that through your THICK HEAD!!!!!!!!!

Freeride - He Is correct. This Is not a good bill as it Is written. The bill that we need passed Is the Senate version by Grassley. The Lamar Smith bill has a preemption clause In It that effeectively will not let the states enforce the law even If the federal government does not enforce It. The "Chamber of Commerce Is the one behind this preemption clause,and they are the ones that are front and center trying to stop Arizona's E-Verify law as well as SB 1070. We want the states to keep their rights to enforce E-Verify. If this bill passes like It Is, the states will give up their rights to enforce this law. Only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would be able to enforce this,and we all know how that works .... TS

Yes, Barletta is on our side, he just disagrees with the House version of E-verify bill. Barletta is not the only one, pro-enforcement advocate Kris Kobach also disagrees with it.

We do have to be so careful with this bill. I believe the senate version is probably better, but what are the odds of it passing?

Very frustrating.........

This is an example of how we can be mislead by legislation that may seem helpful. It is important to carefully examine the words, to understand the meaning, and to not be swayed by the name or names attached as sponsor or co-sponsors.

The Chamber of Commerce is definitely not on the side of enforcement.

Ephesians 4:32, it is written, "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

GeorgiaPeach - This one doesn't seem to be a cut and dried, good or bad bill. Pro-enforcement advocates both support and oppose it -- Barletta and Kris Kobach oppose it, but NumbersUSA and Krikorian from Center for Imm Studies support it. It sounds like the Senate version is bettter than the House one. I don't know if you saw this thread on it ? for more discussion:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-241085-.html

GeorgiaPeach - This one doesn't seem to be a cut and dried, good or bad bill. Pro-enforcement advocates both support and oppose it -- Barletta and Kris Kobach oppose it, but NumbersUSA and Krikorian from Center for Imm Studies support it. It sounds like the Senate version is bettter than the House one. I don't know if you saw this thread on it ? for more discussion:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-241085-.html

Thank you builditfornow for the additional information. I have not read the included thread, but will following this post.

I understand that those opposed to illegal immigration could see certain pieces of legislation through different eyes. As we know, enforcement is a real problem for the federal government.

Hebrews 11:1, it is written, "for faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

GeorgiaPeach - This one doesn't seem to be a cut and dried, good or bad bill. Pro-enforcement advocates both support and oppose it -- Barletta and Kris Kobach oppose it, but NumbersUSA and Krikorian from Center for Imm Studies support it. It sounds like the Senate version is bettter than the House one. I don't know if you saw this thread on it ? for more discussion:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-241085-.html

Thank you builditfornow for the additional information. I have not read the included thread, but will following this post.

I understand that those opposed to illegal immigration could see certain pieces of legislation through different eyes. As we know, enforcement is a real problem for the federal government.

Hebrews 11:1, it is written, "for faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You're welcome.