Homeland Security Releases Revised "No-Match" Rules
On Friday, March 21, the Department Homeland Security (DHS) released revised rules for employers who receive "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Homeland Security issued the revised rules in response to a federal court injunction that stopped an earlier version from taking effect. No-match letters are notices sent by the SSA to employers, warning them that an employee's name and social security number do not match the Administration's records.
In August 2007, DHS first promulgated no-match letters requiring that employers who receive them take affirmative steps to have the employee resolve the no-match or terminate the employee. The rule was barely in place when several organizations, including the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged them and persuaded the federal district court in San Francisco to issue an injunction, barring the rules from taking effect. That federal court decision determined that Homeland Security has the authority to require employers to ensure that listed employees are not illegal aliens, but held that the agency had made several technical errors in promulgating the rule. These three errors identified by the court were that Homeland Security:
Failed to adequately explain its change of position on "no-match" letters;
Established anti-discrimination standards outside of its authority; and
Failed to review and determine the impact of the new regulations on small businesses.
After this ruling, DHS announced it would comply with the court injunction, but also intended to revise the regulations to meet the court's objections.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Dan Stein on Immigration Enforcement Methods
Dan Stein on Immigration Enforcement Methods
Dan Stein Testifies Before House Subcommittee on Immigration Enforcement Methods
The modest increase in interior immigration enforcement over the past 18 months has led to the expected protests from the illegal alien advocacy network. Alleging isolated instances in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been heavy-handed in its enforcement efforts, these groups are seeking to limit interior enforcement. The lack of any meaningful form of interior immigration enforcement contributed mightily to the growth of America’s illegal population, as people knew that once they entered the country, little or no effort would be made to find them and remove them.
Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, on February 13, FAIR’s president, Dan Stein, urged Congress to take corrective action when and if ICE does not follow proper procedure. However, he stressed the importance of maintaining a vigorous interior enforcement effort. FAIR has long argued that border security the first line of defense against illegal immigration cannot be the only line of defense. Stein rejected the idea that the remedy for the alleged isolated excesses by ICE should be curtailment of serious interior enforcement efforts.
Speaking on behalf of FAIR, Stein encouraged the subcommittee to continue to add detention facilities for illegal aliens apprehended by ICE and ending the so-called “catch and release” policy. Lacking adequate detention facilities to hold illegal aliens they have already apprehended, ICE has been forced to turn people loose with an order to appear for a hearing at some future date. An audit by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found that over a three-year period ending in 2006, 280,987 deportable aliens were released due to lack of detention beds, and that some 600,000 aliens who had been ordered deported had absconded.
Stein also called upon “Congress and the national political leadership of this nation to demonstrate the political will to dramatically increase the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in a manner consistent with credible deterrence.” Increasing the likelihood of apprehension and detention would deter many potential illegal immigrants from making the expensive and often dangerous journey to the U.S., Stein told the subcommittee.
Dan Stein Testifies Before House Subcommittee on Immigration Enforcement Methods
The modest increase in interior immigration enforcement over the past 18 months has led to the expected protests from the illegal alien advocacy network. Alleging isolated instances in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been heavy-handed in its enforcement efforts, these groups are seeking to limit interior enforcement. The lack of any meaningful form of interior immigration enforcement contributed mightily to the growth of America’s illegal population, as people knew that once they entered the country, little or no effort would be made to find them and remove them.
Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, on February 13, FAIR’s president, Dan Stein, urged Congress to take corrective action when and if ICE does not follow proper procedure. However, he stressed the importance of maintaining a vigorous interior enforcement effort. FAIR has long argued that border security the first line of defense against illegal immigration cannot be the only line of defense. Stein rejected the idea that the remedy for the alleged isolated excesses by ICE should be curtailment of serious interior enforcement efforts.
Speaking on behalf of FAIR, Stein encouraged the subcommittee to continue to add detention facilities for illegal aliens apprehended by ICE and ending the so-called “catch and release” policy. Lacking adequate detention facilities to hold illegal aliens they have already apprehended, ICE has been forced to turn people loose with an order to appear for a hearing at some future date. An audit by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found that over a three-year period ending in 2006, 280,987 deportable aliens were released due to lack of detention beds, and that some 600,000 aliens who had been ordered deported had absconded.
Stein also called upon “Congress and the national political leadership of this nation to demonstrate the political will to dramatically increase the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in a manner consistent with credible deterrence.” Increasing the likelihood of apprehension and detention would deter many potential illegal immigrants from making the expensive and often dangerous journey to the U.S., Stein told the subcommittee.
Al GORE ROLE REMAINS A MYSTERY TO ALL BUT AL
GORE ROLE REMAINS A MYSTERY TO ALL BUT AL
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Even as the rest of the Democratic Party around him takes sides in the epic struggle of Clinton vs. Obama, Al Gore remains inscrutable, silent, above the battle.
His gigantic but unspoken presence is raising rumors and fueling speculation. Joe Klein, writing in Time Magazine, even suggested a scenario where a deadlocked convention turns its lonely eyes to Al.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson comes out for Obama, and so do Ted Kennedy and Bill Bradley. Govs. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey back Hillary. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while avoiding an endorsement, speaks out to ask superdelegates to respect the will of the voters.
But barely a peep from Big Al, except to say, "I think it's going to resolve itself. We'll see."
What's his game?
A source close to him confirms that he does not plan to make any endorsement until after the primaries are over on June 3. And then? All they'll say is "stay tuned."
For what? Our guess is that Al is keeping his powder dry to lead the superdelegates in accepting the will of the voters. Perhaps in concert with a Gang of Five that might include former president Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Party Chairman Howard Dean and former candidate John Edwards, Gore may act as the elder statesman in the party, stepping in after all the voters have spoken, asking the Clintons to accept the will of the people and give way.
He might quell the credentials battles, giving Florida and Michigan some representation in return for a recognition that Obama should be the nominee.
He could be the one who brings closure to what could be an open-ended summer bloodbath.
What about the chances that Al would go the other way and urge a Hillary nomination?
Seeing himself as the victim of one stolen election, we don't think Gore will be anxious to switch sides and help the Clintons steal this one.
He knows that all hell would break lose if the nomination goes to Hillary after the voters give Obama a lead of over 100 votes among elected delegates, and he realizes that the Democratic Party might never recover from the resulting bitterness.
But if Al acts as the honest broker, he can have a great influence and earn the everlasting gratitude of his party for leading the way in avoiding a civil war.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Even as the rest of the Democratic Party around him takes sides in the epic struggle of Clinton vs. Obama, Al Gore remains inscrutable, silent, above the battle.
His gigantic but unspoken presence is raising rumors and fueling speculation. Joe Klein, writing in Time Magazine, even suggested a scenario where a deadlocked convention turns its lonely eyes to Al.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson comes out for Obama, and so do Ted Kennedy and Bill Bradley. Govs. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey back Hillary. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while avoiding an endorsement, speaks out to ask superdelegates to respect the will of the voters.
But barely a peep from Big Al, except to say, "I think it's going to resolve itself. We'll see."
What's his game?
A source close to him confirms that he does not plan to make any endorsement until after the primaries are over on June 3. And then? All they'll say is "stay tuned."
For what? Our guess is that Al is keeping his powder dry to lead the superdelegates in accepting the will of the voters. Perhaps in concert with a Gang of Five that might include former president Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Party Chairman Howard Dean and former candidate John Edwards, Gore may act as the elder statesman in the party, stepping in after all the voters have spoken, asking the Clintons to accept the will of the people and give way.
He might quell the credentials battles, giving Florida and Michigan some representation in return for a recognition that Obama should be the nominee.
He could be the one who brings closure to what could be an open-ended summer bloodbath.
What about the chances that Al would go the other way and urge a Hillary nomination?
Seeing himself as the victim of one stolen election, we don't think Gore will be anxious to switch sides and help the Clintons steal this one.
He knows that all hell would break lose if the nomination goes to Hillary after the voters give Obama a lead of over 100 votes among elected delegates, and he realizes that the Democratic Party might never recover from the resulting bitterness.
But if Al acts as the honest broker, he can have a great influence and earn the everlasting gratitude of his party for leading the way in avoiding a civil war.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
GAO Finds Real Holes in the Virtual Fence
GAO Finds Real Holes in the Virtual Fence
Ever since Congress and the Bush administration agreed to construct hundreds of miles of security fencing along our southern border, immigration enforcement opponents have worked diligently to ensure that it gets built as slowly as possible, if at all. Earlier this year, we reported about provisions in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill that will hamper further construction. There has also been talk from some congressional leaders of substituting “virtual fencing” for the actual fencing called for in the 2006 legislation.
A new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals that virtual fencing may be virtually useless in our efforts to stop real illegal aliens and, potentially, real terrorists who attempt to enter our country. Moreover, the GAO concluded that $20.6 million spent to construct virtual fencing along the Arizona border has turned out to be an actual waste of taxpayer money. Because of problems with the first 28-mile segment, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that completion of the first phase of the technological initiative to secure the border will be delayed from late 2008 until 2011.
The Boeing Corporation was contracted in 2006 to implement a series of nine security towers equipped with night vision cameras, radar and sensors, along with a variety of communications systems and software to monitor activities along large stretches of the border. The technology was supposed to have been in place by June 2007, but the software system failed to distribute the information gathered by the detection devices. In December, Boeing submitted plans to CBP that were supposed to fix these problems. CBP accepted these “fixes” and began training personnel on the system’s use on February 22, just five days before the GAO reported that the virtual fence did not work.
In response, the CBP conceded that they do not expect the virtual fence to substantially improve the Border Patrol’s ability to capture illegal border crossers. Rather — in the virtual reality that exists only inside the Beltway — the value of the failed project is expected to be a lesson learned. The GAO was a little more blunt about the lessons learned. The virtual fence “was never what [the Border Patrol] wanted, it never will be. They’re going to have to replace all the equipment,” Richard Stana, GAO’s director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues told Congress.
In his testimony before Congress in March, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued that the GAO’s conclusions about the virtual fence were overstated. Chertoff assured Congress and the public that Boeing would be absorbing the costs associated with the system’s defects.
FAIR has supported the use of technology that has been proven to work to help monitor activities in more remote areas of the border. However, we have long contended that technology should complement, not replace, actual fencing and manpower. Real fencing, where it is in place along our borders, has proven to be highly effective in controlling illegal entries. But even when technology works as it is supposed to, it is useless without adequate manpower and equipment to apprehend illegal border crossers when they are detected.
Ever since Congress and the Bush administration agreed to construct hundreds of miles of security fencing along our southern border, immigration enforcement opponents have worked diligently to ensure that it gets built as slowly as possible, if at all. Earlier this year, we reported about provisions in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill that will hamper further construction. There has also been talk from some congressional leaders of substituting “virtual fencing” for the actual fencing called for in the 2006 legislation.
A new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals that virtual fencing may be virtually useless in our efforts to stop real illegal aliens and, potentially, real terrorists who attempt to enter our country. Moreover, the GAO concluded that $20.6 million spent to construct virtual fencing along the Arizona border has turned out to be an actual waste of taxpayer money. Because of problems with the first 28-mile segment, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that completion of the first phase of the technological initiative to secure the border will be delayed from late 2008 until 2011.
The Boeing Corporation was contracted in 2006 to implement a series of nine security towers equipped with night vision cameras, radar and sensors, along with a variety of communications systems and software to monitor activities along large stretches of the border. The technology was supposed to have been in place by June 2007, but the software system failed to distribute the information gathered by the detection devices. In December, Boeing submitted plans to CBP that were supposed to fix these problems. CBP accepted these “fixes” and began training personnel on the system’s use on February 22, just five days before the GAO reported that the virtual fence did not work.
In response, the CBP conceded that they do not expect the virtual fence to substantially improve the Border Patrol’s ability to capture illegal border crossers. Rather — in the virtual reality that exists only inside the Beltway — the value of the failed project is expected to be a lesson learned. The GAO was a little more blunt about the lessons learned. The virtual fence “was never what [the Border Patrol] wanted, it never will be. They’re going to have to replace all the equipment,” Richard Stana, GAO’s director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues told Congress.
In his testimony before Congress in March, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued that the GAO’s conclusions about the virtual fence were overstated. Chertoff assured Congress and the public that Boeing would be absorbing the costs associated with the system’s defects.
FAIR has supported the use of technology that has been proven to work to help monitor activities in more remote areas of the border. However, we have long contended that technology should complement, not replace, actual fencing and manpower. Real fencing, where it is in place along our borders, has proven to be highly effective in controlling illegal entries. But even when technology works as it is supposed to, it is useless without adequate manpower and equipment to apprehend illegal border crossers when they are detected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)