The Duty of Government and our Leaders
Citizens of the United States are entitled to expect their government to serve them. Federal State and Local Governments and even business interests tolerate illegal populations. Its costing the tax payer too much in public assistance and other entitlements, prison costs, and education and healthcare costs. By doing so they breach their duty to the citizens and residents who are legally present and engaged in the attempt to make their status legal and permanent with the goal of becoming American citizens. Many Americans have come to suspect that their own government officials are willfully breaching that trust for their own political gain.
One such example is that Congressman James R. Langevin testified against, and then voted against a requirement of a State issued ID or passport identifying the voter in order to vote in a federal election. Our own former Secretary of State testified that in "his experience, " The type of fraud the bill was intended to prevent was "virtually non-existent." He made this claim under oath before a congressional committee. There is no excuse for such irresponsibility. A photo Id is the most ordinary instrument of ordinary commerce. But Jim Langevin thinks we should be able to rely more on a credit card transaction than the authenticity of a vote. Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a voter of the opposing point of view. We need to prevent U.S. citezens from voting improperly or more than once. And we need to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. What more needs to be said ?
A Threat to our Cities Demands Integrity of Our Governments
We must not tolerate the “Sanctuary City” concept. The idea of a “Sanctuary City” sounds compassionate, but who wants to live in a city where law enforcement is directed to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? The city offers an opportunity for the enjoyment of diversity but not if the city is in fact a place where immigration chaos is allowed to reign. There are too many costs in public assistance, prisons, and the loss of jobs for citizens and legal residents. It is not good for some jobs to become stigmatized as only suitable for illegals. A good honest days work is something to be proud of . We certainly don't want Americans thinking they are better then anyone else and so that certain work is beneath them. Moreover, when an illegal alien commits a serious crime, one must ask, how did they get here? These sort of incidents may not occur every day, but they discredit our government in the eyes of its people. Such a failure of government is never a good civic lesson for our young, and it is frustrating, and costly, for our citezens, and insufferable to the victim. We are entitled to accountability from the Federal State and Local governments, which governments we demand, must work together as partners in the control of illegal immigration. Having said all that, lets remember that we are a nation of immigrants and when people comes to this country for work and the American dream, be welcoming of newcomers who come to build the greatness of America. And, be patient. Its not easy to learn English, and it is the right of business to cater to its customers.
COMMON SENSE MEASURES TO CONTROLL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ITS COSTS
PHYSICAL OBSTACLES *
James R. Langevin is opposed to fences where they could work, because he is afraid that someone will get hurt trying to go around the fence. * Thus he would deprive us of the ability to manage immigration in an orderly way. This is not leadership. It is powerlessness and a misplaced sense of responsibility. Our Government must not be disabled from doing its job.
OBSTACLES TO WORKING ILLEGALLY AND OBTAINING ENTITLEMENTS
I encourage the voter to go to the USCIS web site and inform themselves on E-Verify and SAVE. (Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements) One prevents illegal employment, the other enables State to determine whether or not someone is here illegally, so as to prevent the payment of benefits. E-verify can work and should be made mandatory nationwide, but right now, it presents difficulties to employers that must be addressed. Some politicians emphasize these difficulties to discourage the adoption of E-verify , just as they would discourage use of any other practical barriers to illegal immigration. I would address these issues to encourage the widespread use of E-verify.
If you can come to the United States and go on public assistance, than it is even more attractive then coming for work. Those who come to the U.S. illegally must know they will not receive public assistance. Those who come here legally but will have large numbers of children without ability to support them should be restrained from coming. We must make sure that the agencies of government and quasi-governmental agencies that provide public assistance are fully compliant with the law and in the administration of the law. We must reduce subsidies that reward irresponsible child bearing.
Protecting Employers and Agencies who use E-Verify and Save
If our employers and State Agencies are expected to perform this important function for us, we must not have them harassed with discrimination claims and lawsuits and claims they aren't using E-verify or SAVE fairly. Most E-verifcation happen in seconds. But not all take seconds, and this creates issues. Employers should be allowed to perform the check without taking a full application, should be entitled to hire immediately a worker who is cleared, without a complaint from the applicant whose status came back uncertain, and the employer should not have to hire anyone who is not cleared, only to have to fire them, and then to effect a termination when the verification pending comes back un-approved 3 to 5 days later. The workers will take responsibility, as they should, to make sure they are coming up as "verified". The burden of any misunderstandings should be on USCIS, and the migrant worker, and not the employers or State Agencies.
3 Points on Immigration
PHYSICAL OBSTACLES TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
OBSTACLES TO EMPLOYMENT OR ENTITLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. THE PUBLIC TREASURE SHALL NOT BE THE EFFECTIVE 'SPONSOR" OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
NO BLANKET AMNESTY, BUT A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP SUBJECT TO SUPERVISON AND CONDITIONS SUCH AS REGULAR LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OR EARNINGS HISTORY AND A CLEAN CRIMINAL HISTORY AND REGULAR FILING OF TAX RETURNS.
YOU DECIDE THIS ISSUE
"POLITIFACT " GIVES ME A "PANTS ON FIRE RATING" FOR THIS STATEMENT CLAIMING IT IS BORDERING ON FABRICATION. LANGEVIN DID NOT ISSUE A DENIAL WHEN ASKED. INSTEAD OF BEING ASKING FOR AN ADMISSION OR DENIAL, THE REPORTER ONLY ASKED LANGEVIN "WHY" HE VOTED AGAINST THE LEGISLATION. LANGEVIN DID NOT DIRECTLY RESPOND HIMSELF:
.....For the record, we asked Langevin’s office why the Congressman voted against the legislation. Spokeswoman Joy Fox responded with an email saying that Langevin is not convinced that the border fence is an answer to the problem of border security.
“He had serious concerns that the costs of the bill would not result in significant improvements to our border security. And these concerns, unfortunately, have been borne out. The border fence initiative has been beset by ineffective management, cost overruns and missed deadlines,” Fox said.