"Lars is right."

Did you throw up in your mouth a little bit when you wrote that?

This ruins Lar's record of being wrong all the time. It was a good run though.

Smith says his company won't use E-Verify because it's not a "biometric" scan -- meaning photo, fingerprint, and "iris scan". Smith then goes further and argues that the federal government ought to have a database that includes photos, fingerprints, and iris scans for every American. (Seriously. Page the ACLU.)

Seems it wasn't too long ago that when some of us civil libertarians were slamming Kulo and the Democratic leadership including Merkley in the Oregon legislature for not standing up to Real ID (which is where Smith go this), Kari, good Rovian-style operative that he is, was not sympathetic.

Unlike what real Democrats have done in other states, the "compromise" our supposedly Democratic leadership reached with our supposedly Democratic governor with the silent acquiescence of the DPO and support of the Republicans, was hardly a defense of privacy and civil rights: New Real ID Regulations: It's Still a Real Nightmare. They required everyone to produce all but the "iris scan" for now to renew their drivers licenses and that info goes into a database available to the feds.

I wonder if the silent readership out there has realized that much of what they see argued in Blue Oregon consistently, or the kind of politicians they support, aren't really what real Democrats are about, even though Kari the rest claim to be Dmeocrats? As one bit of evidence, here's the ACLU scorecard for the 2007-2008 session starters, note Merkley only scored 60%, Kate Brown 55%, Shrader 50%, and Westlund 40%, just to name four self-serving politicians who don't really care what it means to be a Democrat if that gets in the way of their own political ambitions.

In fact, if you look at the HB-2827 column, the Real-ID act, you'll see Merkley voted YES for the Real ID act which passed in the House under his leadership and then died in committee. Merkley, Shrader and Westlund voted YES for SB-1080, which was the compromise that in effect required the information I cited to be provided to the state and the feds. Brown voted for SB-424, which "legalized discrimination against medical marijuana cardholders in employment", and SB-34, which created "a state Pharmacy Database on lawful prescription drugs", along with other attacks on our civil liberties.

One need not agree with Larson's opinion on how to deal with illegal immigration in order to applaud his calling out of Gordon Smith for allegedly hiring many undocumented workers.

I'll withhold further comment until Jack Roberts attempts to exonerate Smith by blaming the economy.

I am far right Republican. Smith has abandoned our party. In Beaverton, Hispanic gangs are tagging nice houses, crime is way up, saw women robbed at knifepoint at NewSeasons Market on a Saturday at 9AM outside store, luckily two guys tackled the kids.

We hear gunshots at night, car across the street broken into, and our house Tagged.

Most of this linked to Mexican mafia, per police, per the tag of X3 gang.

We need SMITH OUT OF OFFICE NOW. I have had it.

This issue will not bring down Smith, except losing Lars and all the anti-immigration extremists. I wish the Country would wake up and realise the solution to the problem lies with the employer. All employers should be given immunity provided they report accurately all employees who cannot establish their citizenship. INS/ICE should issue temporary (5yr) work visas for all those employees allowing them to remain as long as they are employed. During that time, they would be required to apply for and attain permanent status. This would greatly reduce the number of undocumented immigrants. It would also limit the impact on industry by not displacing an often large portion of work force.

One need not agree with Larson's opinion on how to deal with illegal immigration in order to applaud his calling out of Gordon Smith for allegedly hiring many undocumented workers.

That depends, Tom, on whether you actually silently agree with the kind of people who make "undocumented" immigration an issue at all and things like Real ID, which in fact was just another tactic by a certain segment of Democrats like those cited and Republicans to make "undocumented" immigration a political issue.

"Smith then goes further and argues that the federal government ought to have a database that includes photos, fingerprints, and iris scans for every American."

Yes, there is the civil liberties angle. But just think about the cost and the bureacracy that Smith is advocating.

Not to mention that such a system couldn't possibly be implemented for years and years, and would be riddled with errors for years after that. Great stalling tactic by Smith. Until there is a perfect system, he does .... nothing at all.

Smith is the one who went on the radio and said no, no, my company doesn't hire undocumented workers. Turns out they probably did. What's next - he's going to say "ok, we did, but I didn't know about it"? And is anyone really going to say that the only way Smith could have known about the status of his workers was by using everify? Is there no other way? I don't like everify, but that doesn't mean I'll let Smith off the hook for this.

I concur with Kari, particularly his use of "flouting" to describe Smith's actions.

This issue will not bring down Smith, except losing Lars and all the anti-immigration extremists.

Hey, I thought I banned the words "anti-immigration" when talking about this topic. 2 minutes in the penalty box for you.

Seriously now, E-verify may not be perfect, but I used it for 18 months without a single problem. I ran close to 100 employees through it and got immediate verification to work on all of them. Curiously though, once I started using the system and made that fact known to potential applicants, the number of people who chose NOT to take an application went up dramatically.

By the way, I thought you Libs would be cheering Smith for hiring illegals. Isn't he just helping them get a better life?

No, mp97303, most of us "Libs" prefer a living wage. In fact, it's the "free-market" conservatives who have the most to gain from illegal employment. Most liberals I know are both concerned about illegal employment, and don't particularly blame immigrants for trying. That's not the same as being in favor of hiring them. It's the people who hire them to save a few bucks who are the problem. Without work, it's harder to stay here. Thanks for doing your part.

Senator Smith's entire office staff

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Tell Senator Smith to accept the E-Verify Challemge

Debunking the “E-Verify Error Rate” http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2008/05/debunking-e-verify-error-rate.html

Debunking the “E-Verify Capacity Problem” http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2008/05/debunking-e-verify-capacity-problem.html

Debunking Three More E-Verify Myths http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/labels/E-Verify.html

By The Numbers

85,000 employers enrolled in e-Verify

6.03 million employees checked using e-Verify

DHS Touts Workforce Verification by Mickey McCarter Wednesday, 10 September 2008

ICE, USCIS showcase voluntary employee checks

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been improving its employment verification application, which already instantly clears most employees checked against it, by focusing on specific populations who have been experiencing problems with mismatched names and social security numbers in the system, DHS officials said in a press conference Tuesday.

For example, audits of the E-Verify system demonstrate improved rates after DHS addressed problems verifying naturalized US citizens, reported Gerri Ratliff, a deputy associate director at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

According to an analysis by research firm Westat, automatic verification of an individual's work authorization status occurs 94.2 percent of the time with E-Verify. Of the remainder, 0.5 percent of those with an initial mismatch resolve it successfully, leaving 5.3 percent as unauthorized workers.

"By the way, 90 percent of mismatches are folks who choose not to contest their mismatch. So really, the system works," Ratliff declared.

http://hstoday.us/content/view/5102/128/

Hmmm - an error rate of 5.8%. So what you're saying is almost 350,000 checks come back with wrong information from a population checked of a litle over 6MM.

Not acceptable.

Kurt

So that I can respond to your comment, where did you get the 5.8% error rate number from?

Thanks

Kurt Chapman,

No, there is not a 5.8% error rate.

0.5% of workers who are documented are not confirmed by the system. But they can work while updating their records to receive confirmation.

5% of workers are not documented and not confirmed. These are good results.

So, at most, the error is 1/2%, and that is not fatal error. there is recourse to those not verified.

Look here:

Under E-Verify, almost everyone who is authorized to work in the United States is immediately verified by the system. Only about 0.5 percent of those queried who are ultimately confirmed as legal workers receive what is called a "tentative non-confirmation" and need to correct their records.

An employee who receives a tentative non-confirmation has a right to contest it and update his or her information while he or she continues working. E-Verify does not require these workers to be immediately fired.

Of course, many non-confirmations relate to employees who are not legally authorized to work in our country – estimated to be around 5 percent of all workers sent through the system. But those who employ illegal workers have no grounds to complain when the system uncovers that illegality.

"If you want law enforcement, you have to have laws that are enforceable."

Ah, but lobbyists for moneyed interests hold sway in D.C., and moneyed interests want unenforceable laws. So, that's what we get.

Sorry, Dan. As long as business owns Washington, the average American will be unrepresented. And, as Kari points out, do you want to raise taxes to pay for processing all those other businesses? Why not a targeted approach that balances cost and effectiveness?

Wow. 85,000 employers are enrolled -- out of some, what, 6 million companies that make up our economy? That's less than 2%.

18,500+ of those are Arizona companies, the first state to made it mandatory to use the system for new hires. But understand this, a business in NOT REQUIRED to enroll in the system. They only have to if they are going to hire a new employee. To suggest that only 2% of business are enrolled is not a valid criticism of the system.

Kari said: My company, for example, hires rarely and hires college graduates when we do. It wouldn't make sense to get enrolled in the system, get trained on it, etc. We're not at risk. (Though we'd be in just as much trouble if we failed.)

I think you are make a huge assumption that a college graduate is a legal resident. In Arizona, there are plenty of college student who were brought across the border illegally and don't have legal status today.

As far as enrolling/training on the e-verify system, it took me about 10 minutes to register and about 20-25 minutes to do the online tutorial. Trust me, if you can run this site, you can do e-verify.

THERE WILL BE NO AMNESTY!!!

OUR ACCEPTABLE IMMIGRATION REFORM

<h1>1. Secure the Border!!!</h1> <h1>2. Mandate E-Verify for ALL Employees!!!</h1> <h1>3. Mandate E-Verify for ANY Benefit!!!</h1> <h1>4. Stop the Underground Economy!!!</h1> <h1>5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!</h1>

......and make it retroactive!!!

<h1>6. End Chain Migration!!!</h1> <h1>7. Make English our Official Language!!!</h1> <h1>8. Cut Off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities!!</h1>

NOTHING MORE!!! NOTHING LESS!!!

Southwest Border Patrol Sector Apprehensions Fiscal Year-------------2005---------2006---------2007-------2008 (ends 9/30) San Diego------------126,879-----142,104---- 152,460--- 149,418 El Centro--------------55,725-------61,465----- 55,883----- 38,012 Yuma-----------------138,492-----118,549----- 37,992------ 7,966 * Tucson --------------439,053-----392,074---- 378,239--- 299,635 El Paso---------------122,624-----122,256----- 75,464----- 28,716 Marfa ------------------10,532--------7,520------- 5,536------ 5,113 Del Rio -----------------68,547------42,636----- 22,920----- 19,612 Laredo -----------------75,268------74,840----- 56,714------41,160 Rio Grande Valley --134,136----110,528------ 73,430----- 70,656 Apprehensions----1,189,108--1,071,972-----858,638----660,288(08/31)

END THE JOB MAGNET!!!

MANDATE E-VERIFY!!!

--------SOUTHWEST BORDER PATROL APPREHENSIONS-------- ---2000-----2001-----2002----2003-----2004------2005------2006-----2007----2008 1,643,679-1,235,718-929,809-905,065-1,139,282-1,189,108-1,071,972-858,638-660,288

Over 11 million illegals apprehended, at our Southwest Border, in just the last ten years.

and to think that, less than 1, out of 4, are apprehended.

It makes one wonder, just how many illegals are really in our United States????????

If Utility Companies like PGE collect as part of their rate structure amounts for State taxes and then distribute these funds to stock holders why should anyone assume that employers with undocumented workers are in compliance. If memory serves me the Oregon legislature passed a bill and it became law that requires utilities to submit taxes if they are collected. How is that working out?

A thorough audit of Smith's company may be needed to make the discovery of how many workers are having taxes with- held and how fully compliant the company is with the law.

Agreed, Dan, but I guess what I'm saying is that we need people in power who'll actually do something. The current system is not likely to reform unless we can get the right people in.

Buzzam writes:

#5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!! ......and make it retroactive!!!

Why would you want to punish people who have lived here their entire life--and possibly make them stateless--just because their parents broke the law?

I have to agree with that banning birthright citizenship retroactively is going too far. That being said, what is your position on ending birthright citizenship. You know, only the US, Canada and Mexico grant it (of the largest countries). All others require at least one parent to be a citizen.

Your thought would be greatly appreciated. Thanx

The real answer to illegal immigration is to fix Mexico. Wasn't free trade supposed to create all kinds of good jobs there? Most of these folks would rather be at home but there are simply no economic opportunities for them.

THERE WILL BE MORE PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!!!

My position is that the status quo policy on birthright citizenship should be maintained. Someone who has lived their entire life in the U.S. should not face the prospect of having to move somewhere else, where they might not speak the language, be accustomed to the culture, or even be a legal citizen. On that last point, it is heartless to place people in the position of possibly being stateless. I don't care if we are one of the few nations that has a reasonable and humane policy.

As far as I'm concerned, if you were born it the U.S., you are as American as anyone else, no matter who your parents are. That's been a principle of our society for over a century.

Birthright citizenship - we need to remove the magnet that draws pregnant foreigners to cross our border illegally to birth an anchor baby on our soil. Stop conveying citizenship for such births. Just recently an illegal, in labor, was carried by Mexican border guards, so she could give birth on our side. Enough already.

<h1>5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!</h1>

......and make it retroactive!!!

As far as I'm concerned, if you were born it the U.S., you are as American as anyone else, no matter who your parents are. That's been a principle of our society for over a century.

There are many scholarly type who would debate that point. I just don't see why someone who sneaks across the border to deliver their baby should be rewarded. In Yuma(AZ), Wal-mart babies are a common occurrence. That's just plain wrong.

If you were born here, you are legally a US citizen. That is the law. We cannot seem to follow the law as it stands due to the numbers of undocumented immigrants. Now the anti-immigrant crowd advocates revoking legitimate citizenship. Great solution. Try the employer immunity suggestion and document all those immigrants who help fuel business, and focus enforcement on the unproductive undocumented immigrants who should be deported.

The basic problem is that we reward illegal behavior in this issue. Employers are damn near assured they won't be checked and if so won't face serious consequences, meanwhile they reap the rewards. Labor intensive agriculture finds between 10-15% of the cost of the product is labor, shelf price. But there is always the excuse - if I don't I can't get workers or I can't compete.

Leveling the playing field between legal activity and illegal is the solution and it involves real serious and real likely consequences for illegal activity. It also isn't rocket science, though the profiteers would have you believe so.

In closing, I have no idea why Flack Roberts is accorded respect here when he engages in that behavior. I'd argue ideology all day and be good humored about it, but shilling and flackery drives me to intolerance. This is not about opinion, this is about the mangling of facts.

As I recall, Roberts was once Labor Comm. If so, shouldn't he be taken seriously here?

Or do you folks think problems are only solved when one party alone discusses an issue?

8 weeks from now, the election will be over, and this problem will still exist.

Dan P. is right "It simply won't be possible to fashion a constructive solution on immigration without folks like Jack Roberts - and while you might disrespect his role vis-a-vis the Senate campaign, at least recognize an ally on this issue when you seen one, ok?"

and I at least find it beyond belief that the hatemongers talking about dropping birthright citizenship from the Constitution

Now there is the right way to engage in intelligent debate about a very difficult topic. Name calling. And to think y'all had changed........

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

* is born in the United States
* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth. The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[8]

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[9] although it has generally been assumed that they are

torridjoe

Your point about the bar is spot on with how the Arizona hiring law is set up. If an employer can show that an employee passed e-verify, the employer is given the presumption of innocence and unless the state can show the employer committed fraud, the employer is in the clear.

mp97303, says:

I just don't see why someone who sneaks across the border to deliver their baby should be rewarded. In Yuma(AZ), Wal-mart babies are a common occurrence. That's just plain wrong.

I agree it's a frustrating problem, but your solution is more wrong. You're punishing people based on what their parents did, and in a completely inhumane way. There's no guarantee that a child born here of foreign parents that has lived here all their life (a) would actually be able to fit into the culture of their parents' country of origin or (b) actually has a right to live there. (Not all nations bestow jus sanguinis citizenship.) In fact, if they aren't legally entitled to live in their parents' country of origin, then they can't even be deported. You've just created a stateless person, who has no place to go and no way to support themselves.

What would you have such a person do?

My guess is that the end up working under the table, which causes the same problems as illegal immigration.

I cannot imagine this is a viable solution to the illegal immigration problem.

Rulial

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point of my argument. The reason so many pregnant women cross the border illegally is so that their child can become an American citizen with all that entails. All I am suggesting is that if we enact an "inherited citizenship," to be either one parent a citizen or LEGAL resident, like the majority of the world, we would eliminate a major reason why illegal aliens come here.

And no, I am not the one advocating for this to be retroactive in any way.

Kari wrote:

... what if the bouncer looking at the IDs is blind? Would that be considered due diligence?

I think this is an apt analogy.

We are discussing this based on the information in the WW issue and Smith's statements. None of this is testimony under oath, so we don't have grounds for a guilty verdict. It looks like a very promising political issue to me, though.