Thread: Gov. Carcieri Wins Big Battle Over Illegal Immigration

Go to www.aclj.org
12.03.08
Protecting Christians
It's a global issue that has sweeping ramifications. A resolution being considered at the U.N. puts the safety of Christians at risk worldwide. Find out more about how you can make a difference in protecting rights of Christians. Today on Jay Sekulow Live!

This is the group who acted on the behalf of Mrs Bologna who lost her husband and two of her sons by way of sanctuary city policies. A gang banger killed most of this womans family after a traffic dispute and her husband even backed up. The illegal aliens gang banger response . An AK47 in to the car.

Time to put it in high gear and get E-verify Mandatory for every business!!! The loss of American jobs is a huge factor in building support to get IA's out of Jobs that American Citizens can and will do!!!

ACLU criticizes immigration order at hearing

NBC 10 News and The Associated Press
Published: December 3, 2008

PROVIDENCE—Advocates for immigrants’ rights on Wednesday criticized new state rules aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants in the workplace, saying the regulations were vague and could lead to discrimination of job applicants and other problems.

The state Department of Administration held the first of two public hearings on a key component of Gov. Don Carcieri’s March mandate, which required executive branch agencies and companies doing business with the state to use the federal E-Verify database to confirm that new hires have valid Social Security numbers and are eligible for employment.

Supporters of E-Verify said the initiative would protect American jobs, but immigrant advocates said it was riddled with potential problems.

“We have great concern,“ said Amy Vitale, program coordinator of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’d like to see some very significant amendments to the rules before they’re put into play.“

The ACLU had sued Carcieri, seeking to throw out his requirement that private employers use the database. That suit is still pending, but a judge has denied the ACLU’s request for a restraining order seeking to stop the emergency implementation of the rules because of a lack of public comment period.

Fifteen states have passed legislation requiring at least some companies use E-Verify.

More than 84,000 employers around the country are registered with E-Verify, and the number of queries run through the system has already increased this fiscal year by more than 2.6 million compared to all of fiscal year 2007, according to federal figures.

Vitale said the new rules contain overly broad language that would expand the scope of Carcieri’s order and require even those businesses who haven’t been awarded a contract to use E-Verify before making a bid on state contracts.

Vitale also cited one 2007 study, commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security, that found employers misused E-Verify to reduce work hours, cut pay and put off training when job applicants
couldn’t be immediately confirmed through the system.

The ACLU wants Rhode Island’s rules to include protections for new hires, including that new employees be allowed time off to rectify errors with the Social Security Administration.

More generally, vague terms such as “contractorâ€

The ACLU wants Rhode Island’s rules to include protections for new hires, including that new employees be allowed time off to rectify errors with the Social Security Administration.

This statement is a joke. When an employer runs a new hire through Everify, and the return is a no-match, the employee has an excessive amount of time to meet with the SSA to fix the problem. The employer can not do a darn thing to the new hire until the last minute of the last hour of the last day specified by DHS or the SSA unless the employee bails or concedes. I believe it is 8 working days. Has the AACLU ever read the rules? What I get out of this statement, is the AACLU wants the employee to fix the problem on company time while being paid. Why? Why would I want to pay a new hire to run around and fix a problem that should have been fixed PRIOR to applying for the job? Protections? They are built into the system, and not in the employers favor.

As far as this going to the people to somewhat decide, this is the way it should be. If the majority of people want this, then so be it! Let the AACLU whine and snivel all they want, and the courts should toss each complaint out the window because the majority rules. If only it could be this easy. Isn't that how we got Obama?