OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Earlier Today, House Appropriators Rejected E-Verify Amendments; Reps. Price,

Obey, and Wasserman-Schultz Spoke Against These Provisions

Earlier this morning, the House Appropriations Committee met to write

the annual Homeland Security spending bill and the annual bill that

funds Congress for the coming year. At the "mark-up," the

Committee rejected two E-Verify related amendments to the Homeland

Security bill and another related to the Legislative Branch spending

bill. E-Verify is an electronically operated system that ensures

American jobs go to American workers by allowing employers to quickly

check the work authorization status of their new hires.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) -- a true immigration reformer --

offered an amendment to the Homeland Security bill to extend

E-Verify. While that bill already contains a short, two-year

reauthorization of E-Verify, Congressman Calvert knows the true value

of the program and sought a longer extension of E-Verify. After

Calvert spoke in support of his amendment, Appropriations Homeland

Security Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. David Price (D-NC), spoke against the

amendment. Rep. Price urged the entire Committee to vote

against the amendment. Then, the Committee Chairman, Rep. David

Obey (D-WI), spoke against the amendment, as well. Obey argued

that the Homeland Security spending bill shouldn't contain an E-Verify

authorization at all!

Immediately following the rejection of the Calvert Amendment, another

true immigration reformer -- Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA)

-- offered an amendment to the Homeland Security bill to require

companies who contract with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use

E-Verify. This common sense amendment would have ensured that contractors who

do business with DHS -- the same agency

tasked with enforcing our immigration laws -- do not hire illegal

aliens. Congressman Price AGAIN spoke in opposition to the

Kingston amendment, erroneously claiming that E-Verify is inaccurate

and that the program would be unable to handle the expansion to DHS

contractors. Even though Congressman Kingston pointed out that

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stated last month that the program

could indeed handle a large-scale expansion, and that the program has

an incredible accuracy rate of 99.6%, the House Appropriations

Committee still rejected the amendment!

Later in the morning, Congressman Kingston attempted to attach a

similar E-Verify amendment to the Legislative Branch spending

bill. This provision would have required contractors who do

business with the U.S. Congress to use E-Verify. This time,

Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee Chairwoman Debbie

Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) urged the Committee to reject the Kingston

Amendment.

In speaking out against these amendments, Reps. Price, Obey, and

Wasserman-Schultz effectively urged their colleagues to not only put

the E-Verify program in jeopardy, but also ensure that illegal aliens

can continue to work on federal contracts with DHS and the U.S.

Congress!

Sying E-verify is unfair is like trying to tell the police that they don't have the right to see if you have any warrants out for your arrest when they pull you over for speeding.

E-VERIFIES IDENTITY FRAUDS! When I retired in CA and moved to CT, my IDENTITY WAS STOLEN and given to an immigrant from INDIA by my LAST CA EMPLOYER who was replacing USA workers with cheaper Indian technology workers! The bad news is that my last employer simply left MY NAME AND IDENTITY on the annual VERIFICATION LIST TO SOCIAL SECURITY. Consequently, I LOST ALL MY MEDICAL BENEFITS in CT.

Fortunately, SOCIAL SECURITY SAT ON THE PHONE WITH ME FOR 3 DAYS WHILE WE TRACKED DOWN THE PERSON CURRENTLY USING MY IDENTITY IN CA. Working together, the Social Security contractor and I backtracked my identity and made sure my last pre-retirement employer used the NAME of the new Indian employee and RETURNED MY OWN NAME IDENTITY TO ME IN CT.

Big Rooster.

Yer dam right .That's why I don't know why the libtards in congress insist on making it not work.I tried posting it with the titles.WHY GUT E-VERIFY and MORE HELP FOR ILLEGALS ,,,,but they were scrubbed with no explanation.

Also,,,you were right on with the suggestion to visit Dallas,but if he went,he would have to be dragged away kicking and screaming.

Rejean, I thought he would go away quietly...

hahahahahahahahhahah

The problem with your new title is that people are voting against it based on the title.

E-Verify, or something like it, should be available to every employer. Then use should be encouraged by fining employers $1,000 per day for every illegal employee they've got.

We also need a workable guest worker program. To get it started, we should accept workers already here, with steady jobs and no criminal record. But numbers need to be limited.

The bill to eliminate anchor babies is also a critical component of the solution.

A negitive rating is what I would expect for this title.

Especially after reading the first comment

Twitchy, lets start with getting everyone out that doesn't belong here...period.

Big Rooster,

That's attacking the problem from the wrong end. It would be a lot easier and cheaper to make it a lot more difficult for illegals to find employment. They also should not be eligible for welfare. Then many of them will leave voluntarily.

Once enough of them leave voluntarily, then we can start working on identifying and deporting the rest.

I know of a lot of people needing work. If we hired them to deport the illegals they would have work for a while. The jobs that they have taken would be opened up to the many that need it and we would save billions on free government handouts.

They wont leave as long as employers will hire them and Nancy praises them as "patriots".

They didn't do any good for their country and they are ruining ours too.

as you can likely tell by now your idea is as idiotic as the leaders you voted for.

most people know your a retard.

as evidenced by the -30 score

Big Rooster,

If we tried it that way, we'd not only be buried in lawsuits, we'd probably start a medium-sized war. Thanks, but no thanks.

But I agree about the need to discourage illegals. And the best way is to seriously go after the employers.

mrbuzzsaw,

Speaking of retards, I take it you never bother to read anything past the title of a topic.

-31 what else is there to say?

the only reason to gut e-verify is to allow illegals into the realm of government contracts.

obviously you are a stupid pinko clown or you would see the danger in allowing some border jumping freak access to projects that concern national security.

Twitchy you know nothing as evident by your stupit sheepish post you pathetic monkey.

i am sure i am far more well versed then a dumb ass like you will ever be.

you need to stfu now.

Buried in laws suits and a medium sized war...if we had somebody besides this balless idiot in the white house that would understand they do not have legal rights (hence the term"illegal aliens")in our country and Americans that were not such damn cowards that they would say things like "we'd probably start a medium-sized war. Thanks, but no thanks."...

God help us all when we refuse to take a stand againt people coming into our country illegaly and would rather just watch it all fall down around us and do nothing.

buzzie, you remind me of any number of flaming a**holes who, on well-run sites, manage to get themselves banned three or four dozen times before finally taking the hint that their 'contribution' is universally seen as totally worthless.

Which usually describes their entire life.

Big Rooster,

I certainly agree that something serious needs to be done about illegals. I don't think anybody since Ike has done much about it, so blaming BO isn't going to accomplish anything.

Like I've said before, there are multiple steps that we need to take:

Reinterpret the 14th amendment to eliminate anchor babies.

Make E-Verify, or something even better, universally available and hit the employers of illegals with massive fines.

Make illegals ineligible for welfare and other benefits.

A workable guest worker program, with limited numbers, would help, as would ending the War on Drugs, which mostly serves to funnel money to illegal gangs.

I didn't blame Obama...I said he would do nothing about it.

I should have Googled this but didn't Ike run something called "operation wet back"? I would love to see Americans being employed to take a stand against criminals and round them up again.

You are right to say "Make illegal's ineligible for welfare and other benefits" and "Reinterpret the 14th amendment to eliminate anchor babies", I will stand right there with ya on that too.

When the government won't stand up for us on these issues they are promoting illegal activities and racism. I doubt that Americans would hate Mexicans as much is they were not stealing our country from us by overloading the system with there votes and crushing our government by taking more free handouts than our system can stand...our people are being neglected because of there people.

USA first no matter what.

This is probably a hate crime in the future..

I love it when Americans do the right thing and stand up for our country. That just makes me feel a little bit better about our people...to know that I am not alone.

Thanks rejean.

According to rejean..."E-Verify is an electronically operated system that ensures (HA, HA)

American jobs go to American workers by allowing employers (who DO the lying) to quickly "check" the work authorization status of their "new hires".

In MY EXAMPLE, my identity as a new S.S. RETIREE, was STOLEN by my former EMPLOYER in CA...and given

to a newly imported worker from INDIA who began receiving salary checks under my name and cashing them, using MY NAME. Fortunately Social Security and I caught them within 3 months of the THEFT OF MY IDENTITY.

"Verifications" of immigration status by dishonest employers can result in an INCREASE OF IDENTITY THEFTS!. New retirees should be warned of this new identity theft danger.

totally worthless

Having A system in place is alot better then none at all.

I'm wondering why they didn't just call the cops, why they had to stage something for the press.

Do you really believe that the cops would do anything at all? I don't.

Why not? It's clearly a violation of the law.

Look at the quality of people on this web site...I would trust you to enforce the law but I sure see the city or state saying that they were just expressing themseves or some other lame assed excuse...look at what has been done to our flag already.

I would like to think they would do something(sheriff Joe would) but I wouldn't put my money on it.

Mary,

Did your previous employer get in any trouble for that? They should be in jail, or at least been fined.