Kerrie Rushton of the White House e-mails:

Rich, Sorry for the delay in getting to you on this one, but I’m hoping you’ll still post a response to your “Hill source” from Monday. 1) The Administration would support having information from these applications available in more cases. That said, the fact that information-sharing is confined to the applications of criminals, frauds, terrorists, and so on hardly seems like a reason to oppose the bill. Our view is that this provision improves significantly upon the status quo by giving law enforcement more information about alien criminals, frauds, and terrorists than it has today. The result is that law enforcement will have a much easier time hunting these aliens down — and the country will be safer as a result. 2) The Administration has never argued that increased interior enforcement alone is the only answer to the problem of illegal immigration — and if anything, the data cited illustrate that point. Enacting comprehensive immigration reform — including border security, enforcement at the worksite, a temporary worker program, and a legalization program — will improve upon those numbers by stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and “shrinking the haystack” of those already here. All components of immigration reform must be enacted, or none of them will be solved. 3) We have responded several times on a couple websites to the background check issue. Here’s one. 4) We have also responded to this on your site. Please see. But to further clarify, the system is expected to work well for the Zs, who will have been issued new cards designed with this purpose specifically in mind. The bill is more cautious, however, in light of the tens of millions of Americans who will also need to be verified through system as it is phased in over several years. Hence, the allowance for a streamlined appeals process. 4 (actually number 5, but who is counting ?!) The Capitol Hill source is correct about potential mitigating circumstances, but incorrect about litigation risk. The decision whether to mitigate would be determined in procedures to be set up by DHS, and is in the discretion of DHS. The mitigation procedures do not create any independent rights or entitlements, and hence do not open any new avenues for litigation.