Lot’s of e-mail counter-responses. A few representative ones:
–Has Kerrie Rushton, or anyone else, explained what the motivation will be for illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows, stand in a long line for citizenship and pay a $5,000 fine? These are the same people who came into our country illegally because they didn’t want to stand in line. What is so magical about the proposed legislation that it will compel illegal immigrants to come forward and identify themselves? If we don’t have the resources to round them up to deport them, we don’t have the resources to round them up to force them to comply with the proposed immigration legislation….
–Wow, so instead of not enforcing a 3 year ban on reentry for detained illegals, the White House wants to not enforce a 10 year ban…
–Supporters of this bill seem to be missing the bigger picture, and don’t really understand why so many of us are against it.
I’m in the real estate development business, and so am always working on projects and financings involving highly structured contracts. After a while, you learn that no matter how well the deal has been “papered”, and how detailed the contract is, unless you’re comfortable the other side is negotiating in good faith (and will do business in good faith), the contract is just words on paper. And if it’s that, you should probably walk from the deal.
I think unfortunately that’s where a lot of Americans are – no matter what specifics in the bill the White House points to, no matter what arguments they make, people just don’t believe that any of these “improvements” are really going to happen. They look around, consider what’s happened over the last 21 years (i.e., the complete lack of interest in real enforcement by the government), and say to themselves, “Wait a minute, this bill is just another example of our elected officials in Washington DC running a big con on us. They really think we’re that stupid”.
I actually think Bush is doing what he thinks is best, but he’s trying to do it with 21 years of the government’s baggage.
–Rich,
Take a close look at the legislation on the EEVS system. Employers are required to use it. But they cannot deny employment to someone who fails the EEVS check!
Moreover, there is a long, drawn-out processes of appeals by the employee to remain employed while they protest or contest the results of EEVS.
EEVS needs to be mandatory. Employers should be able to deny employment to people who fail the EEVS check. Correcting the EEVS data should become the problem of the employee, not the employer. Employers must be given safe harbor against all civil suits for denying employment to those who fail a EEVS check.