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.
No Loss for Words 
E-Verify can work for Public Sector too!
by Steve DanaIf 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 »