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.
No Loss for Words 
Rick Larsen “Leading us to Ruin”
by Steve DanaI received an electronic newsletter today from Congressman Rick Larsen telling me how he was looking out for my interests by voting on various bills before the congress. It occurred to me that what we really need is elected officials that look out for our interests before the crisis rather than after the crisis.
My number one priority is creating jobs and restoring fiscal responsibility so we can create an economic environment that will grow and support good jobs well into the future.
But if we want to build a foundation for future economic growth, it is critical that we change the underlying rules that helped to create the recession in the first place. A failure to act will merely set us up for another economic disaster.
That is why Congress must pass legislation to end the Era of Big Bank Bailouts.
Two years after the economy collapsed, we continue to uncover shocking new details about the risky practices and reckless behavior of Big Banks that cost Americans trillions of dollars in retirement, college savings and financial security.
Congressman Larsen should tell us specifically what he recommends we do proactively to change our government so us regular folks are better protected from perils like this one. The proposal before the congress has many regulatory changes; which ones in particular does he think change things for the better? If creating jobs and restoring fiscal responsibility are his number one priority, how would passing the Dodd Bill make that happen?
The “underlying rules that helped create the recession” have been in place for a long time. What effort did Congressman Larsen make to safeguard us during his ten years in office?
What exactly is Mr. Larsen or for that matter any of our elected officials doing to solve the significant problems that are spiraling out of control already but are not at crisis proportions yet?
Many of us regular folks have known for a long time that the banking regulations were not protecting us consumers, but Congressman Larsen wasn’t fighting for banking regulations until after the collapse. What kind of leadership is that? We need leaders who are out in front the issues, preventing a crisis, not responding after the fact.
Mr. Larsen would have us believe that big banks are the problem. So what legislation did he propose that would change banking regulations to protect us?
There is a current outcry about the Arizona governor’s decision to sign legislation from the Arizona Legislature requiring that Arizona law enforcement agencies enforce state and federal immigration laws in Arizona. As elected officials in that state, they were bound by their oath of office to enforce the laws, to protect and defend the people of their state. How could that be a bad thing?
So Congressman Larsen tell us what you think Immigration Policy should be! If you think law enforcement agencies will have to do illegal profiling, how do you propose they identify illegal aliens without it? Tell us specifically what you think about this issue? Should we be securing the border? How should we secure the border? Are Mexicans the biggest threat we face from an unsecured border? How should we deal with the millions of Mexicans (and others) living in the U.S. who have come across the border illegally? Do you support deportation or amnesty?
So Congressman Larsen tell us what you think about the explosion on the drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico that is currently creating an environmental crisis in that region? What should government’s responsibility be in the aftermath? Should we suspend all off-shore drilling? Have we learned anything from this experience so far? Do we need more or different regulations?
Every elected official in the land should be advocating we enforce the laws on the books today. If there are laws that jeopardize our well-being and you are doing nothing to change them, we should assume you are in agreement with them. Not serving on a particular committee is not an acceptable answer to inaction!
During his ten years in congress, what exactly did he do personally to prevent the housing crisis, the banking crisis, the energy crisis and the debt crisis? Or whatever other crisis that has not already come to light? And maybe just as important, what is he working on today to avert another crisis from damaging our country?
How has his service in the congress made a positive difference to his constituents? Where has his leadership been demonstrated best during his ten years in office? Has Congressman Rick Larsen demonstrated leadership qualities at all during his five terms in office?
We need leaders elected who will work proactively for the betterment of our citizens, not special interests and after the fact.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues, Washington, Washington Jobs | Leave a Comment »