Thread: Take Your Best Shot

mkfarnam wrote:

The way I feel about the "Real ID", "Save Act" and any other short titled bill. Where the title says nothing about the Bill, and the words to the Bill have no explanation or detail toward the true purpose or definition of the Bill.

These are most likely Fronts for other Bills attached to them. They're either a waiver or loop hole for an existing law.
If they say they're to protect the American people, there's no doubt they're speaking about what illegals will become after their plan of attack with amnesty.

My name for these bill's are......"Illegal Immigation Invitations"

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I wish someone would read the darn bill and list the specific problems they have with it. Like I siad, it's an enforcement only bill. There is no "Illegal Immigration Invitations" that I can find. Actually, I can't understand how anyone who supports "attrition through enforcement" could position themself against the bill. Perhaps I'm missing something but I've yet to discover what it is.

By the way, are you Paulite too? Just curious because most everyone on ALIPAC that has voiced their opposition to the SAVE Act have been Ron Paul fans.

That's the problem with these Bills. You don't know what their acually for until after they've been Initiated.

Heath Shuler said plainly to Glenn Beck that there will be no amnesty attached to SAVE, "None whatsoever." He said if amnesty gets attached to it, he will vote against his own bill.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Heath Shuler said plainly to Glenn Beck that there will be no amnesty attached to SAVE, "None whatsoever." He said if amnesty gets attached to it, he will vote against his own bill.

I remember him saying that in his interview as well

MW



Below are exerts from a letter I posted in another thread. The letter was written by Tom De Weese to Roy Beck. These points were enough to put doubt in my mind with regard to the Save Act. I did not mean to imply that Bush is backing the Save Act. My point was to show that I do not support Bush in any fashion. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

"Congress is not bad and everyone in the U.S. Congess isn't against us on the illegal immigrant and border security issue." You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say any such thing ! I did indeed tell you to "take your best shot", however, because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm closed minded. On the contrary, I simply have my own mind ! "I realize some of us have varing opinions on a lot of issues but I thought we all agreed on stopping or greatly reducing illegal immigratio" There's no need for you to put me in a position of having to defend my position on illegal immigration. And, I won't. That you have the audacity to accuse me of being anything other than an opponent of illegal immigration is shameful !





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?

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."

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."

IMO......this should give everyone pause !

MW

And, further more, I watched you bully Lynne last night. What makes you so sure you have all the answers?

Nicie wrote:

MW

And, further more, I watched you bully Lynne last night. What makes you so sure you have all the answers?

I don't profess to have all the answers and I certainly don't recall bullying Lynne last night. She did accuse someone of being hostile toward her but it wasn't me. Do you think I'm bullying you? If so, please tell me how.

Do you think I'm bullying you? If so, please tell me how.

No, I don't think you're bullying me. However, you have a way of putting people on the defensive if they don't agree with you. I'm just trying to have a civil conversation, and an exchange of ideas. That doesn't mean I will capitulate, when I have my own opinions, and they differ from other's. I did read the bills, contrary to what you believe. There is serious doubt in my mind, enough so, that at this time I can't support either of the bills mentioned, for reasons I've already stated. I might not be the brightest bulb in the room, but I'm nobody's puppet either. I've worked long and hard on this illegal immigration crisis. In that, we're in total agreement on.

MW

You're always asking for someone to read the bill, and give you possible reasons to oppose it. I gave you some good examples to at least consider. Did YOU read them ? We didn't discuss the cost of implementing such a bill. Is it even reasonable ? If this bill were to be enacted, the states would have to pay millions of dollars, when they're already nearly banckrupt. The Fed's are supposed to kick in. How good is their word ? It's another way for us, the taxpayer, to foot the bills for or because of the IA's. Just another point of contention. Believe me, when I say protecting American workers is high on my priority list, but I'm not so sure this is the way to do it. American's should never have been put in this position. Tell that to Bush ! That's all I'm saying.

Nicie wrote:

You're always asking for someone to read the bill, and give you possible reasons to oppose it. I gave you some good examples to at least consider. Did YOU read them ?

Yes, I did read the reasons you provided. However, I'm looking for problems you personally found that created concerns in your mind. I'm not looking for Tom De Weese's reasons. Please provide quotes directly from the bill that you find disturbing.

Oh, and I also read the following:

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.

Sounds good to me. Remember, E-Verify isn't going to happen overnight. The program will take five years to completely materialize, which should allow for adjustments to offset growing pains and program expansion.

We didn't discuss the cost of implementing such a bill. Is it even reasonable ? If this bill were to be enacted, the states would have to pay millions of dollars, when they're already nearly banckrupt.

I'm sorry but cost is the least of my concerns because eliminating or reducing illegal immigration is my priority. In my mind, our children and their childrens future is too important to label with a price tag. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share of the cost necessary to rid our nation of the plague we call illegal immigration. By the way, where did you get the information you provided regarding the costs of E-Verify to individual states. Perhaps the following information may give you something to think about in regards to the cost issue:

THE COSTS OF DOING NOTHING
It's time to pass the SAVE Act (H.R. 408

Dear Colleague,

Recent claims by some have pointed to the costs associated with H.R. 4088, the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, but they fail to take into account the costs of doing nothing. Many of these reports ignore education, medical, and incarceration costs for illegal aliens that our government absorbs every day. North Carolina and California alone pay several billion dollars per year to provide these public services to illegal aliens. After discussions with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation, they have agreed to revisit these aforementioned costs and also account for items in the SAVE Act that have already been appropriated since its introduction.

Opponents of the SAVE Act claim the federal government is reliant on $17.3 billion in revenue from illegal aliens over the next 10 years. They fear that if the United States enforces existing immigration laws the federal government could lose these 'vital' tax dollars. What message are we sending to our constituents with this rhetoric? Is this revenue loss more important than the rule of law and American security?

Additionally, the recent CBO report stated that enacting the SAVE Act would amount to $2 billion dollars per year in real costs for the first five years of implementation. This modest estimate represents 1/6,000th of our annual GDP. Recently, this Congress found $164 billion for tax rebate checks to jumpstart our economy. Surely we can justify $2 billion a year to secure our borders, protect American workers and enforce EXISTING LAWS.

Let's examine some of our opponents' erroneous claims:

Claim #1: Implementing the E-Verify employment verification system required by the SAVE Act would cost private-sector employers $136 million.

FACT: E-Verify is a quick, easy, and free web-based system for employers to use. The only "cost" is time spent entering information into the database.

FACT: According to the Homeland Security Department, 92 percent of all new hire queries are authorized in less than 5 seconds.

FACT: E-Verify is already being used by more than 59,000 employers on a voluntary basis. It is required by law in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Additionally, all state agencies in North Carolina use E-Verify. In total, nearly a dozen states already require some or all employers to use E-Verify. In fact, if a member of your staff is reading this, they have been processed through E-Verify when you hired them to work in your Congressional office.

FACT: According to Gannett News Service: "…Arizona mandated that all businesses use E-Verify starting Jan. 1, 2008 and fewer problems have been reported than originally feared, said Ann Seiden, spokeswoman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce that opposed the measure in the legislature last year."

"Companies haven't left the state in reaction to E-Verify, she said, and employers haven't reported major problems with the database."

"Anecdotally, we haven't heard as much backlash as we originally thought," Seiden said.

Claim #2: The bill would cost state and local governments $68 million to comply with employment verification requirements.

FACT: Employment verification is a FEDERAL responsibility. E-Verify is a FEDERAL program that will reduce the burden being placed on state and local governments. The legal status of a worker will be checked through the FEDERAL E-Verify database.

Claim #3: The SAVE Act represents $138 million in unfunded mandates.

FACT: This claim is unsubstantiated and completely ignores the CBO report from December 2007 on the costs of illegal immigration on local and state governments That report stated, "In general, state and local governments bear much of the cost of providing certain public services—especially services related to education, health care, and law enforcement—to individuals residing in their jurisdictions. Such programs constitute a major portion of those governments' annual expenditures…"

Examples from the December 2007 CBO Report:

The state and local governments in Colorado spent between $217 million and $225 million for education, Medicaid, and corrections for illegal aliens.

2. The state and local governments in Minnesota spent between $79 million and $118 million to educate an estimated 9,400 to 14,000 children who were unauthorized immigrants in the 2003 –2004 school years. The agency also estimated that an additional $39 million was spent for children who were U.S. citizens but whose parents were unauthorized immigrants (pg. 16) – TOTAL COST to MINNESOTA for EDUCATION – Minimum $118 million

3. The state and local governments in New Mexico spent about $67 million to educate 9,200 unauthorized immigrant schoolchildren in the 2003 –2004 school years. (pg. 16)

4. County governments that share a border with Mexico incurred nearly $190 million in uncompensated health care costs for illegal aliens in 2000; one-quarter of all uncompensated health care costs incurred by the governments in that year.

5. Law enforcement activities in four states – California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas – cost some COUNTY governments that share a border with Mexico a combined total of more than $108 million in 1999.

6. In 2006, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimated that it would spend about $9.7 million on emergency Medicaid services for unauthorized immigrants that year. The agency's actual total spending for that year was $3.1 Billion.

FACT: Those claiming unfunded mandates also ignore other statements from the CBO's December 2007 report including:

"…estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes."

"State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs."

"The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

"Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments."

Claim #4: The SAVE Act will cause $17 billion in anticipated tax losses during a ten year period.

FACT: The federal government should not be counting on revenues from an illegal workforce.

FACT: Those who claim that this bill will reduce tax revenue completely ignore the fact that illegal immigrants earn significantly less than legal immigrants, due to the nature of illegal labor. The CBO and other reputable organizations agree that tax receipts from illegal aliens do not cover the public assistance they receive.

FACT: CBO says in their December 2007 report that illegal immigrants, "…in New York State paid an average of 15 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes; other immigrant groups paid between 21 percent and 31 percent."

FACT: CBO says in their December 2007 report, "The average household income for unauthorized families is significantly less than that of both legal immigrants and native born citizens; therefore, that income is taxed at a lower rate than the income of other groups."

FACT: CBO says in their December 2007 report, "A related effect is that lower-paying jobs also result in unauthorized immigrants' having less disposable income to spend on purchases subject to sales or use taxes. State and local governments typically rely more heavily on revenues from those and other sources (such as property taxes) than revenues generated by taxes on income."

If Members of either party think misrepresenting a cost estimate on the SAVE Act with baseless claims is going to deter efforts to secure America's borders and enforce existing laws, they are mistaken. We ask our colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4088 and request that Congress stop trying to outsmart the American people on illegal immigration by talking tough and doing nothing.

Sincerely,

Heath Shuler Brian Bilbray
Member of Congress Member of Congress

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/shul ... 41108.html