Domination

[RIJIMMY]

So the dems already own the poor, Obama's plan is to get the middle class too. The more you need the government, the more the dems love you. So lets see; who else can we own? What if we have illegal aliens rely on us too? Then when we grant them amnesty, they'll already owe us! With this much control of the population, we'll secure democratic leadership for ages. Soon, most of the population wont pay any taxes, but they'll have the majority vote! We'll force people to work to pay for our supporters, brilliant!!!

Stimulus Loophole Gives 300,000 Jobs to Illegals

Monday, March 9, 2009 6:09 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size






An estimated 300,000 construction jobs paid for by the stimulus plan will go to illegal workers after leading Democrats removed a provision requiring verification of citizenship, a leading immigration expert tells Newsmax.

The House version of the $787 billion stimulus bill required verification of the legal residency of anyone put to work by its spending. But that provision was removed from the bill before members of Congress met to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), tells Newsmax the verification provision was deleted by Democratic leaders even before the bill reached the conference committee, where differences between House and Senate legislation are normally ironed out.

“When it got to conference, the top people -- not just the conference members, but the top people: Reid, Pelosi, and Obama -- chose to kill the provision and not include it,” Camarota says. “This was a purposeful decision.”

The provision would have required that workers’ names to be vetted through the Internet-based E-Verify system. E-Verify, a joint project of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, gives employers a quick means of verifying employee eligibility.

“E-Verify is our most effective tool for preventing illegal immigrants from getting jobs, and they chose not to use it,” says Camarota.

The estimate of 300,000 construction jobs is based on U.S. Census and other studies showing that approximately 15 percent of U.S. construction workers are illegal immigrants.

Construction projects funded by the stimulus bill are expected to generate 2 million jobs. Assuming 15 percent of those workers are illegal, 300,000 illegal aliens would be employed. The actual number could be higher, however, because many of the projects are in states with high immigrant populations, such as Texas, California, and Florida.

The CIS estimates are accepted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and even groups that advocate on behalf of illegals don’t quibble with them much. One activist for illegals, however, told USA Today that the CIS report amounts to “fear tactics.”

Some sources suggest Democrats opened up stimulus money to illegals to placate activists who may have to wait for the outright amnesty they covet. Others say it reflects the influence of pro-business interests who want a vast workforce of reasonably priced labor.

Whatever the motivation, Camarota says it’s no accident the verification measure was stripped out. “This was not just a careless oversight that can sometimes happen in the legislative process,” he says.

One economic concern generated by the CIS report: A significant portion of illegal workers’ income is shipped out of the United States to support their families. That money would no longer be available to support economic activity in the United States.

The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, estimates that in 2004 Mexican nationals pumped $22.2 billion back into Mexico’s economy via remittances sent back home. How well U.S. taxpayers tolerate the export of stimulus dollars given the rapidly rising unemployment at home remains to be seen.

“In general construction jobs are reasonably good paying jobs for working class people, and we’re talking about perhaps 300,000 of them going to people who aren’t supposed to be even in the country,”

Camarota says. “And this is money coming from taxpayers. The whole point of the stimulus is to put Americans back to work. And by not including E-Verify, it’s a terrible slap in the face to U.S. construction workers, who are currently experiencing a 10 percent, sometimes even 15 percent unemployment rate.”

Before leaving office, former President Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal contractors to submit employees’ names to E-verify. President Obama has delayed implementation of that directive until at least May 21.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a lawsuit to prevent making the use of E-Verify mandatory. The organization says Congress approved it strictly as a voluntary initiative.

[buckman]

That flows with the " not for white construction workers" part of the stimulas bill

[Fishpart]

If they get hired correctly and have taxes taken form their pay, there is a windfall for the government because they can't get a refund of the overpayment because they are illegal.

Also look at all the ELECTED ELITE (on both sides) who have tax issues with "domestic help" who have questionable citizenship status. Take princess Caroline who bowed out of the NY senate race because of it and other issues.... We will never see immigration reform that protects United States Citizens (notice I didn't say Americans).

[Raven]

but a good percentage of those wages
are going to the economy of Mexico or Brazil

[RIJIMMY]

In general construction jobs are reasonably good paying jobs for working class people, and we’re talking about perhaps 300,000 of them going to people who aren’t supposed to be even in the country,”

Camarota says. “And this is money coming from taxpayers. The whole point of the stimulus is to put Americans back to work. And by not including E-Verify, it’s a terrible slap in the face to U.S. construction workers, who are currently experiencing a 10 percent, sometimes even 15 percent unemployment rate.”

[buckman]

Most of these jobs are Union. Don't tell me the Union would allow membership with out seeing proof that they are legal!

[Slipknot]

what is your source? who is david A Patten?

if this is true, you mean our own government is working against us? WTF

[RIJIMMY]

this is from a Newsmax article.

[RIJIMMY]

http://cis.org/SenateStimulus

source article

[Travis]

Time to utilize the second amendment for which it was established...

[spence]

Nice, now NEWSMAX is the source of record? Oh geeze...

Isn't it already illegal under most state laws to hire undocumented workers?

Wouldn't the addition of a provision to provide verification actually be considered more law on the books?

Aren't conservatives supposed to be against unecessary law?

So the logic here is that by not burdening business with uncessary laws, President Obama is guilty of employing undocumented workers.

This makes no sense at all...It's no wonder RIJIMMY was so enamored by the story

-spence

[fishbones]

It sounds like you could use a vacation, Spence. Any time you'd like, come on over and you can stay with me in a place called the real world. You must either just like playing devil's advocate, or you really are living a very sheltered existence.

There are already Federal laws on the books to prevent illegals from getting hired in the U.S., but many companies either don't abide or they unknowingly hire illegals. Have you ever filled out an I9 form for your employer? That document, if used correctly prevents illegals from being hired. Unfortunately, there are many illegals that get hired because the employer doesn't use the tools at their disposal to prevent it from happening.

I use the E-Verify site to authorize every employee that we hire. It's free and simple to use. I can honestly say that we have no illegal aliens working for us and we have a workforce of over 750 people. By forcing contractors to use E-Verify, you aren't creating a new law, you're just ensuring that the current laws are followed.

[spence]

I'm just trying to understand what makes people tick. I though that less regulation of business was a good thing, now I'm hearing that we need more.

It's all very confusing.

I had also thought people were innocent until proven guilty, but it looks like judgement on BHO has already been passed!

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

let me make it simple for you Spence, you definitley havent been yourself lately.
1. Economy in tank
2. Tons of taxpayer money for economy
3. Some of that may go to people that are not allowed to work in the US, thus NOT TAXPAYERS
4. Simple, free provision to ensure they $ goes to US citizens only, removed from legislation.

PS - your comment on Newsmax, you more than anyone has quoted asrticels from Huffington Post and I never questioned it. I included the link to the source article.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

let me make it simple for you Spence, you definitley havent been yourself lately.
1. Economy in tank
2. Tons of taxpayer money for economy
3. Some of that may go to people that are not allowed to work in the US, thus NOT TAXPAYERS
4. Simple, free provision to ensure they $ goes to US citizens only, removed from legislation.

PS - your comment on Newsmax, you more than anyone has quoted asrticels from Huffington Post and I never questioned it. I included the link to the source article.

He is in a tough spot, he is pot committed with BHO. But he ain't alone, I see this trend developing with a lot of my friends who have Hussein on the Brain. They will defend him at all cost. I would bet Spence didn't want to write the post that a burned dvd with 25 movies was a nice gesture for the leader of a visiting superpower and one of our greatest allies. They have so much emotion and hope wrapped up in this guy they just can't seem to muster a disparaging word.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

3. Some of that may go to people that are not allowed to work in the US, thus NOT TAXPAYERS

Yes, assuming employers break the law. So just to be sure, you're standing for redundant legislation that assumes US companies will break the law?

PS - your comment on Newsmax, you more than anyone has quoted asrticels from Huffington Post and I never questioned it. I included the link to the source article.

I can think of only a few asrticels from HP I've quoted over the past several years.

Regarding the source. They're extrapolating backwards to make a policy comment, that NEWSMAX is liberally manipulating into a conclusion. There's a big difference here.

By the same logic these jobs could also go to underaged legal citizens, Martians and the mentally unfit. And Obama has directed it as part of his evil plan...

-spence

[sokinwet]

First we'll bit#h about the stimulus plan not working and putting people to work... then we'll bitch because it won't have a provision that would require a new system that would require every hire to be vetted through homeland security...when one of the major criteria of stimulus programs is that they be "shovel ready" in 180 days? And you guys have the nerve to bit#h about earmarks attached to funding legislation when this is so obviously a "political" statement being attached to the stimulus effort ? Or is it that you complain more about the source of the policies more that the substance.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, assuming employers break the law. So just to be sure, you're standing for redundant legislation that assumes US companies will break the law?


I can think of only a few asrticels from HP I've quoted over the past several years.

Regarding the source. They're extrapolating backwards to make a policy comment, that NEWSMAX is liberally manipulating into a conclusion. There's a big difference here.

By the same logic these jobs could also go to underaged legal citizens, Martians and the mentally unfit. And Obama has directed it as part of his evil plan...

-spence

Spence,
I feel like I'm watching a pitcher who has lost his fastball and is going out and trying to get batters out by fooling them with curevballs and changeups. You are the political forum version of a junkballer.

You used to be able to put together coherent and researched arguments, but now you just throw out some big words like "asritcels" and "extrapolating" and hope you confuse us.

Conservatives wanting more legislation? Where did you get that from? Is it because the House version of the stimulus bill wanted to verify that workers are legal? What makes that a conservative directive? Is the House full of "conservative" Democrats? By the way, it's not really legislation being added to the bill. It's legislation that's already there that is just not being dropped.

Do you assume that there are US companies breaking the law? Remember a while back the company in New Bedford that was raided and over 300 illegals were carted off? What about all the manufacturing plants in the midwest? I guess if you don't think it's happening, you're probably not very well informed. These people, no matter how good their intentions or how nice of people they are, are hurting the US economy. They use services that taxpayes pay for, while not contributing to those services. They also are working in jobs that could go to legal citizens who are authorized to work in the US.

Do you really feel that this "redundant" provision is going to "burden" businesses? I can't even understand where you can come up with an argument here. It's more of a burden to businesses to pay the fines associated with hiring undocumented workers than to take literally 30seconds to confirm whether an employee is eligible or not.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

First we'll bit#h about the stimulus plan not working and putting people to work... then we'll bitch because it won't have a provision that would require a new system that would require every hire to be vetted through homeland security...when one of the major criteria of stimulus programs is that they be "shovel ready" in 180 days? And you guys have the nerve to bit#h about earmarks attached to funding legislation when this is so obviously a "political" statement being attached to the stimulus effort ? Or is it that you complain more about the source of the policies more that the substance.

Sokinwet, it's not a big deal to do the E-Verify. It's going on to a website, entering 4 pieces of information and clicking "verify". Pretty simple. It's not a new system, and every company has access to it if they choose. Don't try to make it out to be some big plot to make the Democrats look bad.

[sokinwet]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNC316AKSH.DTL
A good article on e-verify..who's for and against and why it's not a system ready for prime time. Fishbones..I don't recall calling it some big anti democrat plot...but I sure see the posts above pointing the finger at the democrats even though it's opposed by a broad coalition in including that bastion of liberalism the "chamber of commerce". What I did say was the bitching is being directed at the Obama admin. in a you say black..I'll say white manner where no matter what is said or done or what the substance of the matter is some people will oppose it.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Travis

Time to utilize the second amendment for which it was established...

Hell yes !

[Raven]

there are subliminal messages on those Cd's


laws are hardly enforced...

except: when they can make some huge news story

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNC316AKSH.DTL
A good article on e-verify..who's for and against and why it's not a system ready for prime time. Fishbones..I don't recall calling it some big anti democrat plot...but I sure see the posts above pointing the finger at the democrats even though it's opposed by a broad coalition in including that bastion of liberalism the "chamber of commerce". What I did say was the bitching is being directed at the Obama admin. in a you say black..I'll say white manner where no matter what is said or done or what the substance of the matter is some people will oppose it.

Sokinwet, look at the "Intent"
Spend 780 BILLION dollars to improve the economy and the welfare of the US Citizen
Spend ZERO dollars by taking a simple step to ensure the 780 billions DOES BENEFIT US Citizens!

How in gods name is that a BAD thing?
BTW, when the shop in New Bedford was nabbed and the workers detained to be sent back to THEIR HOMES. Anyone want to wager who went to battle for them.........?????
Kennedy and the Dems! Suprise, Suprise. Got make sure they have a pipeline of future voters!

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNC316AKSH.DTL
A good article on e-verify..who's for and against and why it's not a system ready for prime time. Fishbones..I don't recall calling it some big anti democrat plot...but I sure see the posts above pointing the finger at the democrats even though it's opposed by a broad coalition in including that bastion of liberalism the "chamber of commerce". What I did say was the bitching is being directed at the Obama admin. in a you say black..I'll say white manner where no matter what is said or done or what the substance of the matter is some people will oppose it.

"And you guys have the nerve to bit#h about earmarks attached to funding legislation when this is so obviously a "political" statement being attached to the stimulus effort ? Or is it that you complain more about the source of the policies more that the substance."

Okay, maybe you didn't come right out and call it anti-democrat, but you sure do seem to have something against conservatives.

The following is a direct quote from the article you posted.

But critics - including business and labor groups and civil libertarians - say that the system remains fraught with error and could lead to wrongful layoffs. They say it encourages discrimination against workers who appear foreign and promotes more under-the-table hiring.
"We have not taken the effort to go through and fix the errors in people's files before we use this as an enforcement tool," said Timothy Sparapani, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Until we do, this system will be nothing more than a fanciful wish."

First of all, there cannot be discrimination if the person has the correct documents to show they are legal. There would be no reason to lay someone off unless they cannot provide documentation.
As for promoting "under the table hiring". That doesn't even make sense. If a company is verifying authorization to work, there's no reason to hire someone "under the table" because they know the person they are hiring is legal.
And if a company feels that they have to fix errors in peoples files, they should do that regardless of whether they are using E-Verify or not. The government is pretty firm on what paperwork is needed and in how it needs to be filled out.

Say a construction company hires a bunch of people and they don't have the employees fill out all the correct paperwork. Then, someone files a complaint with the labor board because the feel they are being short-changed in their paycheck. When the DLT comes down and does an audit, the company could be in a boatload of trouble because of poor record keeping. The fines can end up in the $100K's for a company that doesn't keep proper records.

So again, explain to me how this is such a bad system. It promotes hiring employees who are legally authorized to work in the US and
it encourages companies to keep records correctly. Aren't these things good?

Below, I've included a link to the DHS website with the information on the E-Verify program. Try reading a little about the program and then decide what you think.

By the way, an article from the SF Gate? You take an article from one of the most liberal publications in the country and only conclude that it's "not ready for prime time" by your own opinion. The article also had plenty of data showing why the program is good for the country.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/program...221678150.shtm

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence,
I feel like I'm watching a pitcher who has lost his fastball and is going out and trying to get batters out by fooling them with curevballs and changeups. You are the political forum version of a junkballer.

You used to be able to put together coherent and researched arguments, but now you just throw out some big words like "asritcels" and "extrapolating" and hope you confuse us.

Asritcels was simply making fun of RIJIMMY's spelling.

As for extrapolating, it's not that big of a word and there's always dictionary.com

Conservatives wanting more legislation? Where did you get that from? Is it because the House version of the stimulus bill wanted to verify that workers are legal? What makes that a conservative directive? Is the House full of "conservative" Democrats? By the way, it's not really legislation being added to the bill. It's legislation that's already there that is just not being dropped.

Do you assume that there are US companies breaking the law? Remember a while back the company in New Bedford that was raided and over 300 illegals were carted off? What about all the manufacturing plants in the midwest? I guess if you don't think it's happening, you're probably not very well informed. These people, no matter how good their intentions or how nice of people they are, are hurting the US economy. They use services that taxpayes pay for, while not contributing to those services. They also are working in jobs that could go to legal citizens who are authorized to work in the US.

Do you really feel that this "redundant" provision is going to "burden" businesses? I can't even understand where you can come up with an argument here. It's more of a burden to businesses to pay the fines associated with hiring undocumented workers than to take literally 30seconds to confirm whether an employee is eligible or not.

I'm obviously being sarcastic to make a point that the outrage over this issue is pretty hypocritical, manufactured and downright silly.

It sounds like proper immigration reform is needed, not some measure tagged onto a spending bill where it doesn't belong.

As for your comment on discrimination, certainly some employers will feel pressure to not hire foreign workers if they believe it could cause them to get a second look from Uncle Sam. Not saying it would be a deal breaker, but it's in the mix regardless.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

uh yeah, we wouldnt want to put things in a stimulas bill that didnt belong.......

BTW, my spelling has always sucked, more of a typing issue. I feel it adds character in this electronic word, like Clammer's posts

[fishbones]

Welcome back, Spence. I hope you don't take everything I post in here too seriously. Sometimes my sense of humor, or lack thereof isn't taken the way it's meant to be.

As for our feelings about this, I don't think we're all that far apart. Why not start now since it's already in the provisions? By taking that part out of the Senate version of the bill, they're just delaying the inevitable.

And I certainly don't believe that all businesses are going to all of a sudden start hiring correctly and following the rules. That will never happen. But, if they make it a requirement, it will undoubtedly spur some companies to start doing the right thing. The E-Verify program shouldn't be made out to be some difficult process that is going to bog down anything or put more laws on the books. It's a great tool that if used is going to make things better for companies.

[sokinwet]

You know I'm all for immigration reform and not the "make em all citizens type either"..I think E Verify can be a good system..I hate Pelosi...and most of my friends are conservatives...but when I see people making assinine statements about building the democratic voting roles, 2nd amendment, etc. I question their real motives. I'm with Spence on this..this isn't the vehicle for immigration reform; this is an emergency measure to get the economy on it's feet...and we want to include homeland security in a vetting process..they've done such a great job on the "do not fly list". Regarding the source of the article..I guess they must be wrong if they're from the "left" coast. And of course the fact that Obama is also FOR this system didn't quite get your attention and that major Business and Labor groups are concerned that it's got faults that need to be worked out before it's put into a MANDATORY format doesn't concern anyone?
Being involved in putting together stimulus ready project listings for a large local community I'm aware that the program is designed to provide a large percentage of construction and infrastructure funding for "Shovel Ready" projects that can be up, running and hiring within 180 days. How can you question the immediate effective impact of the stimulus bill on one hand while on the other hand asking for inclusion of a provision that can only delay the implementation. You want to hang employers who knowingly hire illegals...I'l get the rope...send illegals back to where they came from..I'll volunteer my boat...but don't confuse efforts to fast track our economic recovery by adding in measures that will require a "gearing up" period.
Soapbox yielded to my conservative friends!

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

You know I'm all for immigration reform and not the "make em all citizens type either"..I think E Verify can be a good system..I hate Pelosi...and most of my friends are conservatives...but when I see people making assinine statements about building the democratic voting roles, 2nd amendment, etc. I question their real motives. I'm with Spence on this..this isn't the vehicle for immigration reform; this is an emergency measure to get the economy on it's feet...and we want to include homeland security in a vetting process..they've done such a great job on the "do not fly list". Regarding the source of the article..I guess they must be wrong if they're from the "left" coast. And of course the fact that Obama is also FOR this system didn't quite get your attention and that major Business and Labor groups are concerned that it's got faults that need to be worked out before it's put into a MANDATORY format doesn't concern anyone?
Being involved in putting together stimulus ready project listings for a large local community I'm aware that the program is designed to provide a large percentage of construction and infrastructure funding for "Shovel Ready" projects that can be up, running and hiring within 180 days. How can you question the immediate effective impact of the stimulus bill on one hand while on the other hand asking for inclusion of a provision that can only delay the implementation. You want to hang employers who knowingly hire illegals...I'l get the rope...send illegals back to where they came from..I'll volunteer my boat...but don't confuse efforts to fast track our economic recovery by adding in measures that will require a "gearing up" period.
Soapbox yielded to my conservative friends!

I never mentioned anything about voting roles or the 2nd Amendment. I also never mentioned anything about Obama being against this provision.

My concern is that by not taking action now, the problem grows. Have you read the entire stimulus bill that included this provision? If not, I suggest you take some time and look it over. Then tell me that E-Verify is the only provision in it that could "slow it down". Actually, there are several things in there that are going to be much bigger stumbling blocks than a simple process that is easily accessible and simple to use.

Six months is a pretty fair amount of time for this system to be put in place and for these projects to be "shovel ready". If you only knew how simple this whole thing was, you'd realize that it's not about "gearing up", it's about people not wanting to find out how bad the undocumented worker problem really is.

[sokinwet]

Fishbones - I don't remember quoting you...just read the thread.
Have I read the entire 647 page HR 1 version of the Stimulus Bill...no...and I seriously doubt anyone on here has either. I am however familiar with many provisions of the bill including some pretty involved reporting requirements for the reasons I stated above. Obviously there are differing opinions on this but do you seriously think that democrats don't recognize the illegal immigration problem..or that this is "about people not wanting to find out how bad the undocumented worker problem really is." That's a quote BTW.