I do not understand the opposition to E-Verify. Beyond the economic issues, it would help create a layer of security and accountability to help protect against domestic terrorism. As it stands right now, if there are 20,000 undocumented workers in Rhode Island, the General Assembly could be putting the State at risk.

The opposition is simply that activists who want to shield illegal aliens and their handmaidens in the legislature spread the lie that "E-verify" is somehow"racist".
It's a lie,period.It applies to everyone.
Thhis is your morally corrupt RI government at work.

State Senator Cote

Why have an overwhelming number of RI businesses made the decision not to be part of this program?

Anchor Rising

One of the consistent themes of the poltical thought here has to do with the idea that by removing regulations that hinder businesses you thereby give them more incentive to increase their production and hire more workers. The General Assembly is usually an object of scorn for their percieved anti business actions here on this blog.
So here you have a state senator who wishes to impose by law a program that a clear and overwhelming number of businesses have rejected and I am wondering where you small government advocates are now.

Phil -

What demographic are you using when you say that "a clear and overwhelming number of businesses" oppose E-verify?

Was there an actual survey of all business owners or is this conjecture based on input from lobbyists? I can't imagine any legitimate business owner opposing E-Verify.

If E-Verify saves money, cuts down on crime, and even the playing field smart legitimate business owners would not reject it.

Hey Phil, if you're a business owner and someone asks you to participate in a program that would cost you money (because it's not current state law) and cost you time, but your competition does not have to participate and actually does the opposite of what the program is intended to fix, would you reject that program too?

If the playing field is level, I don't think many business owners will object. It when someone is asked to slant the playing field away from themselves voluntarily that most owners will balk.

The other question I have is for Sen. Cote. If 19 senators feel that strongly about e-verify to co-sponsor the bill, and especially after the games that were played to avoid any real vote on it, why didn't those 19 vote against the state budget until e-verify got a vote? Even if the Senate passes it, it's not like the House would have passed it, so what are they afraid of?

Phil-you're very transparently carrying water for illegal aliens and being disingenuous by trying to taunt other people here about their desire for smaller government.It's not like we conservatives are anti-government.Well,I'm not anyway.
I think government has many legitimate functions-immigration enforcement being a primary and constitutional one.
E-verify is a federal program designed to be used by employers.
Unfortunately,it's not mandated by the Federal government,just made available.
The states are left with the job of mandating its use.
I believe E-verify would help eliminate worksite raids;encourage illegal aliens to return home;and allow ICE to use their resources more effectively to track down and apprehend individually dangerous violators.
I'd like to know this Phil-do you believe illegal aliens have a RIGHT to live and work here?

There is no factual basis whatsoever for Phil's statement. Most RI businesses are not in a position to hire illegal aliens because they are either small, family businesses or firms that require skilled employees.

BS comes in many forms. The citing of irrelevant statistics is one of them.

I never cited statistics or polls. I used the information available in the Senator's post.

" However, it is already used by over 2,200 Rhode Island employers, and this legislation would make it mandatory for 16,000 additional employers in this state."

Sixteen thousand seems to me to be an overwhelming number when compared to twenty two hundred. Clearly many more businesses have chosen not to avail themselves to an existing program than the relative few who have. I asked the Senator why he thought that businesses had not used that existing program.

Joe

I don't know what rights human beings have in this country if they do not have legal documents pertaining to their work, school, or travel. I don't know what human rights are afforded to those found to be here without any legal determination of their status. I will tell you that if a person that you may wish to describe as an illegal alien was to ask me for water I would give them water.

Phil doesn't seem to understand the philosophical and economic differences between voluntary charitable actions and violently coerced redistribution of wealth through government. He also doesn't seem to understand that illegal immigrant status goes beyond merely having certain paperwork in order.

Phil-I asked you a simple question and you went all philosophical on me.
Here's the way I see it:
The water analogy is something anyone would do.If someone heas a heart attack,there's no reason to ask for a green card.If they want a hip replaced at taxpayer expense there damn well is.
If an alien is arrested,they get due process.despite the BS you hear from the advocates.
In a criminal proceeding their rights are identical to mine or yours.
So,you can give an illegal alien(the only correct term)water,but you haven't the right to give him a job.And he has no right to take it.
"Human rights"is a load of crap that emanates from the UN and one-worlders.
The term is unknown in US law.
I hope this made things clearer for you.

Joe

You did clarify some of the legal questions of mine. Since you had capitalized the word "rights" I assumed you had a specific idea as to what was meant by the word. I didn't. I do not use the phrase illegal alien for a human being. I am aware of how the phrase is used. Those are the words you and others use. I don't.

Dan

I don't understand.

Patrick

You make a good point about the lack of an incentive to the 16,000 businesses to join voluntarily. Passing a law requiring them to do what they were not willing to do voluntarily will cost them money and time but at least their competition will have to comply also. I go back to my question about the supposed pro business Anchor rising crowd endorsing the General Assembly requiring businesses in RI to take on additional costs by passing laws such as this one.

Phil-take some time to read Title 8 of the US Code.An "alien" is anyone not a citizen or national of the US.Period.
An alien can be a legal resident;non-immigrant visitor,worker,student,etc;a refugee;or be here illegally.
No where will you find mention of"undocumented immigrant";"undocumented worker";or any other euphemism employed by the bleeding hearts and even some non-bleeding hearts who don't know any better.
I bet you'd think I was a real dope if I insisted on calling a quahog a scallop.
Words do mean something.
I will never understand the blind spot you and many others seem to have on this subject.
Yeah,yeah,our ancestors came as immigrants,most through Ellis Island.Think about that-they had to stop and remain for awhile until they were cleared-or weren't.If you think the US has to embrace everyone who sneaks in undetected,or violates the terms of a legal admission,then we're out of material for a discussion.
And please don't make some value judgment on me because I dare to use the correct legal term for people.
You can call them veeblefetzers if you want,but it doesn't change things.

Joe

How many people would chose to come to this country legally if that obtion was more readily available to them.

Phil-a lot.That's obvious.The point is,we can't take everyone who wants to come in.Show me a country that does.There are some countries no one in their right mind would move to,yet they have immigration laws,usually enforced more stringently than ours.
We,as a sovereign country reserve the right to determine who comes here and who stays.
The Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty keeps getting regurgitated-why?It's a friggin' poem.
This whole concept of "no person is illegal"is a subversive attitude in the worst sense of that word.It means we have to cede control of our borders and shut up because the one-worlders want it that way.
IF there ever was a single world government,God forbid-these radicals would be the first to go to the wall.No government that takes its power from above suffers troublemakers for long.
The great migrations that settled in the US decades ago and more encountered a country with an expanding economy.Do you see an expanding economy today?
I think immigration is good for the country as long as we are admitting people we need.
We don't need more people coming here with their hands out.

"How many people would chose to come to this country legally if that obtion was more readily available to them."

It is. They choose to take the easy route. Or do you think that we should all anyone and everyone in? Should we allow every single person who wants to come to the US and become a citizen just come right in and nationalize? What if 1 billion people wanted to do that in one year?

"I go back to my question about the supposed pro business Anchor rising crowd"

See, that's the part you don't get. This *is* pro-business. Businesses want to be able to compete legally. Those who don't comply with the laws have an unfair advantage. Or should we just strip out ALL labor laws? Are you in favor of that?

I understand Phil's sentiments regarding the status of immigrants. However, I do not think that the opposition to E-Verify has its roots in that sentiment. I think it has its roots in the ability to exploit undocumented workers.

I think failure to adopt E-Verify represents huge danger to Rhode Island and the surrounding states. It makes Rhode Island appear to officially sanction an exploitive employment environment and act as an incubator for criminal activity.

Robert Balliot-"immigrants" are not the issue.Please check the legal definiton of "immigrant" in Title 8 US Code and get back to me.Or not.

Joe - I understand what you are saying too. But, in common usage "immigrant" basically means someone who has moved to another country. So, you both could be correct in your arguments. I think Phil's argument is valid to a certain degree, but I think E-Verify actually helps solve some of the problems he thinks it would create.

Robert Balliot

I don't know if E-Verify would create problems or not. I was asking the question about why an overwhelming number of businesses had not opted into the voluntary program that is available to them now. Unfortunately the Senator did not share his thoughts on the subject with us. Joe Bernstein has a great deal of knowledge in the enforcement area of this discussion he having been an INS agent for decades. I may disagree with Joe in many areas but I respect his knowledge in this area. I have very limited experience in this area. One "illegal alien" I know of was from Finland and settled in Western Coventry. I got to know him through his daughter who is a friend of mine. He lived in Coventry for years raising his family. All his children and his wife, the mother of those children, were citizens of the US. He lived here with some fear of discovery of his illegal status. He passed away around a decade ago. He made beautiful wooden carvings. I still have some of his wooden spoons which I still use today. I do not share the intensity of feeling I hear expressed about the threat that some feel about illegal immigration. As a fisherman I feel some kinship with those who share the trade. I remember reading about the three Mexicans who set the record for the number of days being lost at sea in the New York Times a few years ago. They had gone to the Pacific coast from various far flung places in Mexico to fish for what amounted in wages to about $20 a day. I understand that kind of reality. Instead of travelling across Mexico to go to sea on a small fishing boat they may have easily decided to go north to work for double or triple that without risking their lives. While Katz and others on this site go on about those wealthy residents who choose to go to other places where taxes don't require them to contribute to their communities, I do admit to understanding why someone would choose to uproot and travel a great distance to a hostile environment that promises an opportunity to work and prosper.

Phil - I'm not sure how or why someone who comes to Rhode Island from New Jersey (such as Justin) could be considered *better* than someone who comes from another country. But, New Jersey transplants do have to provide documentation such as a valid SS# to work.

I have heard many people speak with great personal conviction about the problems with 'illegal aliens'. They are often second or third generation US Citizens who count *their* worth by the length of time in the US.

If your family moved to the US fairly recently, you would have had to go through the hazing process of being an immigrant. You would have the lower paying jobs. You might not have a good grasp of English. Your family would have struggled through the new status. So, it is natural to self-validate by disparaging newer arrivals and de-valuing them. It happens in all organizations. Being able to disparage the new arrivals validates your own status of belonging.

Rhode Island welcomes new arrivals. There are many languages being spoken here. There are many cultures that have not been completely diluted giving Rhode Island an upper hand in being an interesting place to live and learn. However, I think processes such as E-Verify help to equalize the status of old arrivals and new arrivals - even the ones from New Jersey.

Robert and Phil-I'll take off my INS hat and make a personal observation-nothing you guys say is wrongheaded.I welcome people who will contribute-they don't have to be rich.We've taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees over the years,many of whom had no skills or education.
If it's amtter of people being slaughtered or allowing them in,I have no problem.
What I'm saying is it has to follow a process for the sake of national security and common sense.
My father in law immigrated with his brother from Honduras in 1940.
He was a sailor and his brother joined the US Army.
They each served in three wars-WW2,Korea,and Vietnam.My father in law in the Merchant Marine and his brother in the infantry.
My father in law was sunk on a convoy run and his brother landed at Normandy all before they naturalized.
Both of them had strong opinions against open borders and thought the job i did was agood one.My wife's uncle is now deceased,but his widow,a second generation American of Mexican descent has the same attitude.
My wife does,too,as do her siblings and cousins.This isn't the"racial"issue that agitators would make it for their own purposes.
Phil's example is illustrative.
I too,feel a kinship with people from other places who did my job.Doesn't mean I'd give the a pass to evade the rules.
We've been a successful nation precisely because we have been one of laws rather than dictators or anarchic mob rule.
Have we been perfect?Of course not-but I'd not throw out the rule of law because of emotion-the results could be horrendous.

59 log10 copies/ml in the reyataz [i]purchase acomplia[/i] arm and −2.