Impressed

Alright, I do have to say I am impressed by David Skaggs. He actually wrote me back, which is a first. In addition to this, he explained himself. Here is his letter.

Dear Mr. Peterson,


Thank you for letting me know your views on this
issue.


I’m afraid you may have misread the story in Friday’s paper
or heard or read some of the news coverage that omitted a key fact. I was not
addressing the question of resident tuition for illegal aliens. My point is that
all Colorado students who are legal U. S. citizens should be treated the same
way, without respect to whether their parents are undocumented. The statute that
prescribes tuition status also require schools to determine the residency or
domicile of a student’s parents. I believe there is an equal protection issue
under the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution if certain Colorado students
who are citizens are treated differently based solely on the status of their
parents. These are students who typically have graduated from Colorado high
schools, are over 18 (and so viewed legally as adults for many purposes) and are
qualified and encouraged to continue their education. The best estimate is that
there may be 75 students in the state in this unusual category – students who
are legal Colorado residents and U. S. citizens, but with parents in Colorado
who are not able to document their immigration status. I suggest that we will
all be better off if they achieve the highest level of education of which they
are capable and so are in a position as adults to be productive, tax-paying
citizens. You might also be interested in the analysis in this morning’s Rocky
Mountain News editorial:
www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/editorials/article/0,2777,DRMN_23964_5664771,00.html.

Best wishes,

Alright, I am glad I wrote him, and that he explained his standing. If you come across my blog David, good show sir. I cannot complain if it is a legal citizen, I do begrudge his parents for being criminals however.

It sounds good...

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal.

Proving
Worker Status Poses Burden to Farms

By JUNE KRONHOLZ
August 9, 2007; Page A7

WASHINGTON -- Employers warned of labor shortages, particularly in
agriculture during the fall harvest, as the Bush administration appeared ready
to implement new rules that would press employers to fire workers who appear to
be in the U.S. illegally.

"With no expectation there's a fall-back workforce, you'll put
employers in the position of either firing workers or losing their crops," said
Craig Regelbrugge of the American Nursery and Landscape Association, a trade
group.

The administration is under pressure from voters, and particularly
Republican conservatives, to show it's tough on illegal immigration after an
immigration bill supported by President Bush collapsed in the Senate in June.
The administration's apparent intention to proceed with the regulations, a year
after first proposing them, was reported earlier by the Los Angeles Times.

The regulations will require employers to play a greater role in
verifying that their workers are in the U.S. legally, potentially putting new
administrative burdens on industries, particularly agriculture, health care and
construction, that typically hire large numbers of immigrants.

In return for the increased records checks and a willingness to fire
suspected illegal immigrants, the regulations offer employers "safe harbor"
protections against prosecution for illegal hiring.
The Department of
Homeland Security said it would implement the regulations "in the very near
term," without saying when. But if that happens during the harvest season, trade
groups predicted huge problems for growers who already face labor shortages. An
estimated two-thirds of agriculture workers are thought to be in the U.S.
illegally.

The department first proposed the regulations in June 2006 but then
failed to implement them while an immigration-overhaul made its way to the
Senate floor. That bill collapsed in part because of a public outcry over the
administration's lax enforcement of immigration laws already on the books.

Currently, an employer reports a new worker's name and Social Security
number with the Social Security Administration, and if the two don't match
government records, the employer receives a so-called "no-match" letter. The
department sends a similar letter if the worker's name doesn't match the
identity document that the worker shows to prove he or she has the right to work
in the U.S.

Employers aren't required to act on those letters, so workers can
present counterfeit or stolen Social Security numbers without much danger of
being challenged by labor-hungry bosses.

Under the new regulations, employers would have to sort out the
discrepancy by asking the worker for new identity and immigration documents. If
the problem still isn't resolved, the regulations say that "the employer must
choose between taking action to terminate the employee or facing the risk" of
prosecution. Employers who complete and document the multi-step verification
process and still don't discover that the worker is an illegal immigrant also
wouldn't be prosecuted under the department's safe-harbor provision.

The new rules "will provide clarity for employers," said Russ Knocke, a
DHS spokesman.
Industries with largely legal workforces will take some
comfort in the safe-harbor provisions, said Scott Vinson of the National Council
of Chain Restaurants, a trade group. But employers in industries that are highly
dependent on immigrants predicted the regulations could lead to a slowing
economy.

"Employers might have to start firing, and then you might have a
workforce that's barely adequate," said Shawn McBurney of the American Hotel and
Lodging Association.
The regulations also are likely to cause paperwork
burdens for employers in low-skill industries, which typically have high
turnover and attract immigrant workers. Those employers will be faced with
sorting through the documents of workers suspected of being in the U.S.
illegally, but also of workers who receive no-match letters because of clerical
errors, name changes or records confusion.

The regulation could quiet criticism by Republican conservatives that
the administration's failure to enforce immigration laws is attracting some half
million illegal immigrants yearly. Under pressure from those critics, the
administration has vastly stepped up worksite enforcement in the past year.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents made 3,839 worksite arrests in the
first eight months of the current fiscal year, up from 1,282 in 2005, according
to a department Web site.

But advocates of immigration overhaul contend that tougher enforcement
will create labor shortages and drive illegal workers into the underground
economy, but it won't keep them from coming. Mr. Regelbrugge also predicted that
employers would move more operations overseas or, as with agriculture, to Mexico
and Canada. "Doing enforcement only is going to have tremendous downside
consequences on the economy," he said.

Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com

Now I, as I said in the post prior to this about this issue, do not have a problem with this. If we would have had our government Enforcing laws already on the books for the years that have passed before this, it wouldn't have been such a hit. However, in saying that, is it really going to be that painful? This makes me remember those who cried "streets of blood" and "non-stop gunfire everywhere" when states passed Right To Carry laws. It never happened. So I doubt that the pain will be more than a drop of rain on my head.

What people voted for.

I was looking over voter results from November 2006. I wanted to post the ones I found interesting.

Arizona

• 
  Prop 100. Denies bail to illegal immigrants. APPROVED 78-22
• 
  Prop 102. No punitive damages to illegal immigrants. APPROVED 74-26
• 
  Prop 103. Makes English the official language of the state. APPROVED 74-26
• 
  Prop 300. Prohibits state subsidies to illegal aliens. APPROVED 72-28

Colorado

• 
  Referendum H. Prohibits tax deduction of wages paid to illegal aliens. APPROVED 51-49
• 
  Referendum K. To sue federal government to enforce immigration laws. APPROVED 56-44

This information came from Initiative & Referendum Institute. I really like what I see here.

Isn't that the point?

I just read this in the Boston Herald.

Immigration agents snag 27 in document scam raid
By Mike Underwood
Thursday, August 9, 2007 - Updated: 04:10 AM EST

Immigration
officials rounded up 27 people yesterday in an effort to smash a suspected
document and benefit fraud operation in Chelsea.

Seven people, all
illegal immigrants, will face criminal charges in U.S. District Court while the
remaining 20 will face immigration charges in a Federal Immigration Court.

“This was a targeted enforcement operation,” said Paula Grenier,
spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency which
carried out the raid.

She said she could not comment on exactly where or
when the raid happened, but said one woman was released from custody because of
“child care” reasons.

The raid comes as federal authorities are poised
to release tough new rules aimed at making it harder for employers to hire
undocumented immigrants. The new rules force employers to confirm Social
Security numbers or fire the workers on the spot. Those who fail to comply could
face fines of $250 to $10,000 per illegal worker.

Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff reinforced the get-tough approach in Boston yesterday
at a national gathering of state lawmakers.

“What I can tell you is we
will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that
we have available, to tackle the problem,” Chertoff said.

Advocates for
immigrants say the rules are too harsh.

“It’s going to hit really hard,”
said Shuya Ohno, a spokesman for Boston-based Massachusetts Immigrant and
Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “When this is enforced uniformly, it will be
devastating.”

MetroWest Daily News and the Associated Press contributed
to this report.

My response to Shuya Ohno is, isn't that the point? Now I wonder which issue here is going to really hit hard? The loss of their documents, or the enforcement of immigration law?

If this Social Security verification plan gets put in place, we are going to see more than just Illegal Immigrants being fired. How many cases of Identity Fraud are going to be exposed? Our own homegrown fugitive felons will have to hide better. I have a feeling that our Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide will be really busy. I bet thousands of cases (failure to appear, persons of interest, wanted, escapees) will be closed in short time.

This is awesome if it comes to bear fruit.

Illegal In State Tuition?

As we saw in my last post, David Skaggs believes we should reward Illegal Immigrants with reduced tuition. Out of curiosity, I emailed him to see if he was man enough to respond. The following is the email I sent. All I wish for is for him to explain his standing.

Sir,

I read an article stating that you support allowing Illegal Immigrants the
right of In State Tuition. I would love to have you explain to me why you want
to reward criminals with reduced tuition costs? How much further out of state
can one get than being from outside of our country? Didn't we (the citizens of
Colorado) make it clear in the last vote by passing Referendum H & K, both
dealing with Illegal Immigrants, with a majority, that we are angry with our tax
dollars going to support these criminals? And now, after the majority of
Colorado residents have shown our dislike of these criminals living in our
state, that you say we should allow them MORE benefits? Please, explain your
thinking!

The state of Colorado, via the federal government, has trained our State
Patrol to enforce federal immigration laws, and is doing so. Many have been
arrested and are in the process of being deported. In time, more will be also. I
never saw anywhere on the last ballot asking voters if we the people approve of
your idea. I am going to follow this issue, and if I do not like what I see, I
will ask that this becomes a referendum on our next state ballot. Quite honestly
sir, you should ask the people how they feel about this.

Perhaps, sir, you should place this on the ballot for all of us to decide.
If a majority agree with you, so be it. Really, if you think this is such a
wonderful idea, and most of us will agree, let us, the people, decide in the
public forum.

So, I sent this just a short time ago. I do highly doubt that he will respond. Why are people so quick to forgive Illegal Immigrants their crimes? Now let me again make this very clear, I am not against any Legal Immigrants, nor am I against any race, religion, sexual preference, or country of origin.