Greg Siskind's Blog

GAO WARNS CONGRESS ON E-VERIFY

The General Accounting Office has released their official testimony before the Social Security Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. A few points caught my attention:

A mandatory E-Verify program would necessitate an increased capacity at
both U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and SSA to
accommodate the estimated 7.4 million employers in the United States.
According to USCIS, as of April 2008, more than 61,000 employers have
registered for E-Verify, and about half are active users. Although DHS has not
prepared official cost figures, USCIS officials estimated that a mandatory EVerify
program could cost a total of about $765 million for fiscal years 2009
through 2012 if only newly hired employees are queried through the program
and about $838 million over the same 4-year period if both newly hired and
current employees are queried.

----

The majority of E-Verify queries entered by
employers—about 92 percent—confirm within seconds that the employee is
work-authorized. About 7 percent of the queries cannot be immediately
confirmed as work authorized by SSA, and about 1 percent cannot be
immediately confirmed as work authorized by USCIS because employees’
information queried through the system does not match information in SSA or
DHS databases. The majority of SSA erroneous tentative nonconfirmations
occur because employees’ citizenship or other information, such as name
changes, is not up to date in the SSA database, generally because individuals
do not request that SSA make these updates.

E-Verify may indeed be a key part of the future of immigration enforcement in America. But DHS and SSA must have the funds and the people to properly administer the program and systems must be put in place to ensure the databases are up to date. Until both happen, protections need to be put in place for workers who dispute non-confirmations that allow them to continue working after they lodge a protest. Illegally present workers are not likely to expose themselves by launching a protest so virtually all people disputing a non-confirmation will be citizens and permanent residents as well as those legally entitled to be in the United States and working.

You can read the report here.Download gao_report_from_may_08.pdf

IMMIGRATION VOICE URGING MEMBERS TO CONTACT HISPANIC CONGRESSMEN

I can sympathize with why members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are blocking pro-immigration bills from moving in Congress. They fear that if pro-immigration bills move, they will lose key allies in pushing through measures of concern to the caucus, particularly when it comes to putting the twelve million illegally present immigrants on a path to a legalization.

However, it is unfair to block important bills from moving just because the politics on your issue are not as good as they should be. We have been on hold for several years now waiting on immigration reform and key bills have waited far too long.

Immigration Voice is urging that people contact members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to urge them to please allow pro-immigration bills to move. I support this effort and urge readers to go to IV to learn more. The CHC has made their point loud and clear.

SENATE DIPS TOE IN THE WATER TO MOVE IMMIGRATION MEASURES

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up a war spending bill and included a number of immigration provisions. The measures included

- a lighter version of AgJobs
- the restoration of the H-2B returning worker provision
- the recapture of unused employment green card numbers
- an early adjustment provision allowing people to file adjustment cases before employment green card numbers are available
- extension of the EB-5 investor visa program
- a new grant program relating to border security

Unfortunately, these provisions are likely to be removed because of Senate rules requiring amendments be germane to the underlying appropriations bill. If there is broad support for a provision, it might survive, but given the politics of immigration, I would not be too optimistic.

USCIS SETS UP GENEALOGY SERVICE

This won't interest a lot of readers, but as an avid genealogy researcher, I'm really pleased to hear that USCIS is setting this up. There are instances where this may be useful as well for those trying to claim citizenship at birth and who need access to US immigration records for their parents and grandparents. Here are the records to be made available:

• Files of deceased subjects. (Provided files are defined as historical records.)
• Naturalization Certificate Files (C-Files) from 9/27/1906 to 4/1/1956
• Visa Files from 7/1/1924 to 3/31/1944 and Visa records from 3/31/1944 to 5/1/1951 in A-files.
• A-Files below 8 million and documents therein dated prior to 5/1/1951
• Registry Files from 3/2/1929 to 3/31/1944 and registry records from 4/1/1944 to 4/30/1951 in A-files.
• AR–2 Files from 8/1/1940 to 3/31/1944 and Alien Registration Forms from 3/31/1944 to 4/30/1951 in A-Files.

USCIS has not posted anything on their web site yet announcing they will accept information requests, but you can see the final rule here. Download uscis_geneaology_announcement.pdf

ICE ARRESTS BORDER PATROL AGENT FOR ALIEN SMUGGLING

This is a new twist on an old story - immigration officials taking advantage of their positions of power and turning to corruption. This is the first case I can recall where a Border Patrol agent was charged with a crime so serious.

CALIFORNIA LEGALIZES SAME SEX MARRIAGE, BUT COUPLES MUST WAIT FOR IMMIGRATION EQUALITY

Even though a number of US states have recognized same sex marriages and civil unions - California today becoming the latest - immigration equality is still a long way off. That's because the Defense of Marriage Act - an unjust relic of the 90s - forbids the federal government from conferring any benefits to same sex couples. Also, it's about time Congress passed the Uniting American Families Act which would establish immigration equality. For information on this bill, go to the web site of Immigration Equality, a human rights group doing important advocacy work in this area. I've written an article that discusses what alternative strategies a couple may pursue to stay together in the US.

MEXICAN POLICE SEEKING ASYLUM IN US

More bad signs of instability at the US-Mexican border and challenges that face both countries in dealing with drug and immigration policies.

IS CIS REALLY NON-PARTISAN?

On the web site of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, the organization's mission is listed prominently:

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.

So why is CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian openly pushing for GOP candidates in his National Review contributions. I follow local politics here in Memphis and last night there was a major upset where a Democrat won what should have been one of the safest Republican seats in the country. In reading news coverage of the meaning of the race, I found this statement from Mr. Krikorian at the National Review web site:

We Are Totally Frakked   [Mark Krikorian]

If the GOP can't hold on to a House seat in the Deep South that Bush won by 25 points, it's going to be 1974 all over again. I'm just hoping that Rahm Emanuel has recruited enough pro-sovereignty, Heath Shuler-style Dems so that we can head off amnesty. But even if that happens, next year is going to be bad on taxes and other issues.

Does this sound non-partisan to you? The use of the word "we" (twice) sure makes it sound like CIS is openly siding with the GOP. Lest you think this is just Mr. Krikorian's private opinion, he has an email link that goes to his CIS.org email address. And given the topic of the post is immigration, any argument that Mr. Krikorian is not speaking for CIS rings very hollow.

Now I'm no expert on non-profit law, but I always understood that promoting political candidates was absolutely taboo and could jeopardize your non-profit status. And it looks like my understanding is correct according to the gurus at nonprofitexpert.com:

Political Campaign Activity
 

                      Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any        political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.  Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax. 

I'm just saying....

WELCOME TO AMERICA

This article has been linked in the comments, but it really merits raising the profile of the often horrible way tourists are treated by our immigration officials. Heavy handed, overzealous, rude CBP officials have done serious damage to the American economy and have also seriously damaged the image of our country abroad. Sure we need to be on the lookout for security threats. But that is just an excuse for intolerable behavior and a lot of the abusive behavior has nothing to do with protecting the country.

THE TEN FOR TEN PLAN

Alan Nash, a Houston lawyer, has developed a very interesting and innovative white paper laying out a plan for immigration reform. While I am not in full agreement with some of the plan, it does add ideas to the discussion. According to Nash,

The heart of the “10 for 10” plan is this: Any non-citizen in the U.S. would have the right to acquire permanent immigrant status by paying, in each year for a 10 year period, the greater of $1,000 indexed for inflation or 10% of his adjusted gross income30 (which would be salary for most persons).

Other provisions of the plan include

- issuance of tamper-proof identity cards to all immigrants
- interim immigrant status during the ten year probationary period based on the payments described above
- elimination of cash payments by employers to employees
- anyone who commits a crime or who is not enrolled in the 10 for 10 program or otherwise legally in the US would be deportable
- employers would be required to go through a verification process for all hired employees
- US citizens would have a "right of first refusal" for all positions to be held by immigrants (this is similar to a labor certification test)
- a guest worker program would be put in place that contains the "right of first refusal" test
- a portion of the funds from the fines would go to supporting vocational training programs for US workers
- border security provisions would be included that are consistent with the Federal Secure Fence Act.

Take a look and post your thoughts in the comments. Download the_10_for_10_plan.pdf