Archive for April, 2010

« Older Entries  |  
April 30, 2010

E-Verify can work for Public Sector too!

by Steve Dana

If the answer to the immigration debate is to make employers responsible for enforcing immigration laws by steering them to the E-Verify system managed by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration I have to believe the same system can work for public service providers as well.

Media pundits point to the high cost of services rendered to illegal aliens on a daily basis. California is supposedly drowning in red ink from the excessive cost of services for illegal aliens. In our state, there is the suggestion that public services are being overwhelmed by illegal aliens. Yet none of the public service entities are allowed to ask about the immigration status of the recipients; and in many cases, they are specifically prohibited from asking.

In Arizona, the state tried to address the failure of the Federal Government to secure the border and stem the flow of illegal aliens and illegal drugs into our country by giving the police the directive to check violators’ eligibility to be in the country. Under my plan, all they have to do is link to the E-Verify system like any business owner would to determine the status of the individual. But unlike the business owner, the police are in a position to investigate further and facilitate the deportation of those folks determined to be in the US illegally. E-Verify is a system that is already in place and would not require a significant addition to the bureaucracy.

If we instruct our Department of Motor Vehicles to link to E-Verify before issuing a Driver’s License (to every applicant to avoid profiling) like business owners could be required to do, we could identify those folks who are legally eligible to be in the country regardless of their ethnicity.

We issue provisional driver licenses to drivers under 21 years of age. We should issue licenses different from the standard one for all aliens. Authorities should be aware when a driver license is presented as identification that the person presenting it is either of legal age to buy tobacco or liquor or that they are citizens of the United States or not.

On a state by state basis, the function of the department of motor vehicles can standardize for that state the process they choose to use with the idea that all the formats be linkable to the E-Verify system. It wouldn’t be a national ID card, but it would be a way to check the national data base.

If we are stopped by police or apply for services we are already asked to provide our driver’s license as identification. If a person is stopped by police or applies for services without that ID, they can offer an alternative explanation that should be verifiable. Either way, the public service agency has a method of determining eligibility. Failing to provide proper ID or acceptable alternative, follow-up action can be pursued.

At the same time, before we enroll children in schools or render medical services at public health providers we link to E-Verify to determine eligibility of the individuals to be in the country legally. The decision to render services or not then can be made with that in mind. If an agency decides to continue offering the service to those individuals, they can at least track them.

If E-Verify is the standard for determining private sector employment eligibility, it can serve in the same capacity for public service agencies.

Certainly there is a cost of implementing the E-Verify system for this application, but if it is a cost small businesses must bear, it cannot be an unreasonable cost to public agencies if the security of our country is at stake.

Posted in House of Representatives, Legislature, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »

Tags:
April 27, 2010

What does an Illegal Alien look like?

by Steve Dana

I was in Arizona and Southern California recently to visit family. I was driving on Interstate 8 from just south of Phoenix to San Diego. In the course of that trip, I encountered three checkpoints on the interstate highway that stopped every car and checked every vehicle to some degree. The folks staffing the checkpoints were Border Patrol officers. They were looking for illegal aliens. I was driving a pick-up truck with a canopy top with windows. They could see inside the cab or in the back if they bothered to look, but they didn’t. They didn’t say anything as I approached the checkpoint other than “Have a nice day.”

There was major man-power at each of these checkpoints looking for illegal aliens.

There have been stories told about border patrol checkpoints on US Highway 101 near Forks in our state; Immigration authorities looking for illegal aliens.

Are they looking for anything else? Can they search my vehicle without my consent?
If they find a stash of cash in a vehicle will they detain a driver and vehicle? Do they interact with state or local law enforcement agencies if they find criminals other than those immigration related?

So what tools do these folks use to identify illegal aliens? What does an illegal alien look like?

Eugene Robinson’s column in Tuesday’s Everett Herald characterized the Arizona immigration law as “draconian” and “abomination”. It was “racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean spirited and unjust.” Robinson said that the only good thing about it was the fact that its excessiveness may well make it unconstitutional.

As I understand it, the Arizona law requires that in the course of investigating a police related matter, participants are required to show adequate identification to establish legal residency in the state or country.

If the border patrol stops a car in Phoenix looking for illegal aliens, aren’t they looking for Mexicans? The border patrol doesn’t need probable cause to stop you, do they?

As a business owner, I am required to gather information from prospective employees that establish their citizenship or right to work if they are not citizens. If they don’t have proper documents, I cannot hire them. I am subject to penalties if I fail to secure those documents before hiring anyone.

There is a Department of Motor Vehicles in every state that collects a fee from every applicant that can pass a test, even when the test has to be given a foreign language, issues a license to drive a car without proof of insurance and is not subject to the same requirements I am as a private business owner to demand proof of citizenship or right to be in the country legally before receiving a license. And for those folks that are not citizens, they receive the same license that I do. Why don’t we have a provisional license for aliens?

I, as a private business owner may be subject to civil or criminal penalty for not doing the job we would expect the government to do.

Why is it that the police are “racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean spirited and unjust” if they demand that proof of citizenship but before I give a person a job or rent him a place to live I am required to do so?

I don’t believe we need a national identification card, but we do need state identity systems that talk to each other and have common standards that make the information easy to share.

We need a system that is at least as effective as other government programs that shoulders the burden of establishing legal residency rather than punishing private business owners. For public agencies that render services paid with public dollars, we need to tie provision of services to only citizens with that state ID card. Schools, medical services and social services are examples.

As an employer or landlord, presentation of a state card should adequately establish legal right to work or rent.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues | 2 Comments »

Tags: ,
April 27, 2010

Why NOT Disclosing Matters…

by Steve Dana

The editorial in the Everett Herald Tuesday spoke to why the Supreme Court should rule in favor of revealing the names of signers of Initiative and Referendum petitions. Their argument was that it is a “Public Disclosure” issue tied in some way to the Open Government Act of 1972.

I couldn’t disagree more. The Public Disclosure Commission was formed to create public oversight of election financing. The people have a right to know who is paying for campaigns.

The state constitution outlines the mechanics of the initiative process. The number of signatures required is determined by how many voters participated in the last general election where we voted for governor. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the signers of the petitions are indeed valid registered voters as outlined in the petition and that enough signatures were collected to meet the numerical threshold requirement.

Where I don’t feel threatened by the prospect of my name being known as a signer of petitions, others may. I have on numerous occasions signed petitions for initiatives that I knew I would vote against if they made it to the ballot. For me, signing the petition is an agreement that the issue should be placed on the ballot, not an endorsement of the content. I would hate to think that by signing a petition I was advertising a particular viewpoint on the issue. I would hate to think that my signature on a petition could be used as a weapon against me or my family.

I believe in the public process that allows us to vote on important issues. Getting those important issues on the ballot is tough enough already. The idea that signers of petitions could be exposed to public harassment in the name of disclosure is just wrong.

I would challenge anyone to offer evidence that the process is compromised in any way by maintaining the privacy of those individuals who signed to give voters a chance to decide.

Absent that evidence, the names on petitions are not relevant and should not be publicized.

I believe in Initiatives and Referendums because they give the public a tool to participate in the legislative process when in their judgment the elected legislative bodies have failed to do so.

The Herald editorial filled four columns with useless drivel. They even referenced the 2004 gubernatorial election; trying to suggest that because a lawsuit was filed challenging the vote count in that election, we should question the process of verifying the authenticity of petition signatures. The Secretary of State and county auditors across the state work hard to maintain voter registration records. The content is changing by the day. At a given point in time, the qualification to vote in a particular election is determined by existing records.

If the Herald wants to criticize the County Auditors for their failure to remove deceased voters or relocated voters from the roles, I won’t argue; but they are suggesting that because of that failure, the identities of petition signers should be made public so the rest of us can properly scrutinize the validity of the names.

Good government is founded upon a system of good processes. Public participation is one of those processes. The public’s business should be conducted in the light of day to insure that it is not corrupt in any way. Extensive effort has been made to accommodate public oversight and participation. I can find no reference to intent or text in the law that would suggest that public oversight in this instance is anything more than monitoring the process of verification.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »

April 20, 2010

Quality of OPPORTUNITY or Quality of OUTCOME, what is our mandate?

by Steve Dana

I spent all day Monday being a guest speaker at Snohomish High School. My friend Tuck Gionet teaches Economics and Government to high school seniors in all of his five classes. He was gracious enough to allow me to interact with his students as they discussed whether government’s role should be to insure to citizens quality of “opportunity” or “outcome.”

This was the fifth or sixth time for me in Mr. Gionet’s class. It was the first time I spent the day talking about their subject matter rather than focusing on my candidacy for office. My assignment was to work into the discussion my political perspective without actually campaigning. Mr. Gionet and I did not tell the kids in advance too much about my political persuasion, he wanted them to figure out my political point of view based upon my responses to the questions during the discussion. That idea went out the window right away since I couldn’t come up with any applications where government had a role in guaranteeing the outcome of anything.

The students are required to write a paper this week comparing and contrasting the two, declaring a preference for one and then defending the choice. It was clear from the interaction that some had given the assignment some thought already because they asked me good questions. It became clear to the students in every class that I had strong feelings about both sides of the argument.

The most challenging aspect of the day was remembering what part of the subject matter I had discussed with which class. All five classes were doing the same assignment and I wanted to standardize at least a part of my presentation for all of them then launch into the actual discussion with the kids. After you have done your spiel two or three times, you forget whether you shared a particular anecdote that demonstrated a point or not. By the end of the day, my feet were sore, my voice was hoarse and I was really parched. That teaching thing is a tough job!

It’s hard convincing some kids that education is an opportunity rather than a given. We talked about how our state constitution calls for education to be the paramount responsibility of state government. We weren’t so clear about whether it meant the opportunity to get an education or the guarantee that all students would get one. We talked about how some kids put more effort into school work than others and as a result got more out of the experience.

I tried to demonstrate to them that as they get older and encounter choices in their lives the quality of their opportunities will ultimately determine how far they get in life. Most of the kids have so few life experiences they fail to grasp the importance of quality opportunities until they are lost. Many of the kids have been so sheltered from the realities of the world that they already have a sense of entitlement. That distresses me!

In the course of the day, discussions in each class went in a different direction. As a champion for “opportunity” I tried to steer the discussion to the importance of “personal choices” and taking responsibility for them. In a free society, people need the opportunity to choose how hard they are willing to work to achieve a level of success. Government does not have a role in guaranteeing a successful outcome for any segment of society except those individuals with demonstrable handicaps that would prevent them from taking advantage of available opportunities.

The other argument that came up on more than one occasion was the role of government in curtailing opportunity for some when it substantially damaged others. “Ethics” in life and business might be a topic for discussion another day, but Monday the regulatory role of government did not fit with arguments supporting the “opportunities” of capitalism and personal initiative.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
« Older Entries  |