E-Verify Points

What is E-Verify?• Free, safe, secure and simple to use, E-Verify provides participating employers an automated Internet-based resource to verify the employment eligibility of newly-hired employees.

• Participating employers electronically compare information taken from the I-9 Form (the paper-based form currently used to verify the work eligibility of all new hires) against more than 449 million records in Social Security Administration’s database and more than 60 million records in Department of Homeland Security immigration databases.

• E-Verify utilizes special safeguards to ensure that employees are not discriminated against. Additionally, the program ensures that employees’ privacy and civil liberties are protected.

Why should employers use E-Verify?

• E-Verify enables cheap, efficient, and accurate compliance with the federal ban on hiring illegal aliens. It is currently the best means available for employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

• E-Verify improves the accuracy of wage and tax reporting, protects jobs for authorized U.S. workers, and helps U.S. employers maintain a legal workforce.

• E-Verify provides a safe harbor for businesses that use the system in good faith. When an employer obtains confirmation of the identity and employment eligibility of an individual, a rebuttable presumption is established that the employer has not violated federal law with respect to the hiring of an illegal alien.

What is the E-Verify Accuracy Rate?

• 96.9 percent of all queries are automatically verified as employment-authorized either instantly or within 24 hours.

Non-confirmations occur because:
The employee is not authorized to work in the United;
The employee has failed to update his or her records with SSA (for example, to reflect changes in name or citizenship status); and
The employer made an error when entering information into the E-Verify system.
Non-confirmations constitute 3.1 percent of E-Verify queries. Of this amount, only 0.3 percent are cases where individuals need to clear up errors in their Social Security Administration records. The rest are not authorized to work in the U.S. Therefore, the E-Verify error rate is only 0.3 percent.

Those who have inaccuracies are given instructions on how to clear up their records with SSA and time to do so. The bottom line is that nobody is automatically ruled out for work authorization and those eligible to work in the U.S. will not lose their job. If a person is not work authorized, it’s not discrimination. It’s following the law.

How widely is E-Verify used?

• E-Verify is now being used to determine work authorization for 1 in 4 new hires. About 170,000 employers have signed up to use the program.
• About 1,000 employers per week are signing up for the E-Verify program despite that fact that it has remained voluntary at the federal level except for federal contractors. Only 12 states require its use in some manner by employers.

What is the Federal Government saying about E-Verify?

• On 9/8/09, the Obama Administration began requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says that E-Verify is an essential tool for employers to maintain a legal workforce and a cornerstone of workplace enforcement across the country. She recognizes that we cannot stop illegal immigration without removing the jobs magnet that draws illegal workers to communities.

Reasons to Support E-Verify

• E-Verify will ensure that citizens and legal residents will not have to compete with illegal aliens for jobs.

• There are no longer any valid excuses for allowing government funds to be used to hire illegal workers, not when there are so many citizens and legal residents struggling to find work.

• The federal government has stepped up to the plate to protect American workers by requiring its contractors to use E-Verify. Now, it’s time for states to do their part.

False Allegations About E-Verify

Qualified workers won’t have a chance to prove that they are authorized to work.

Response: Every individual that gets a tentative non-confirmation is given instructions on how to clear up their records with the Social Security Administration and time to do so. Most cases can be taken care of by phone and involve married or divorced women who did not update their records with SSA. The bottom line is that nobody is automatically ruled out for work authorization and those eligible to work in the U.S. will not lose their job. No citizen or work-eligible legal immigrant has ever lost his/her job because of E-Verify. If there is an inaccuracy in the SSA database, it is best to know about it and rectify it prior to applying for retirement benefits.

Mandatory E-Verify participation would be a burden and increase the cost of doing business.

Response: According to a 2007 study by Westat, 96% of long-term E-Verify users disagreed or strongly disagreed that the tasks required by the system overburden their staff. Any human resources employee assigned to collect information for the Federal I-9 form would simply spend a few extra seconds typing the same data into the E-Verify system. 96.9% of responses come either instantly or within 24 hours. If the business does not have a human resources employee, vendors are available to provide this service on a per-employee or subscription basis. Rates are very affordable.

E-Verify could lead to discrimination.

Response: E-Verify provides the very basis for eliminating hiring discrimination because all new hires must be checked. The system cannot be used selectively for verifications based on foreign appearance.

SSA Database error rates make E-Verify unworkable.

Response: The real error rate is only 0.3 percent. What other government program can boast that it works correctly 99.6% of the time?

E-Verify doesn’t protect against identity theft cases.

Response: The one weak point that remains in E-Verify is the small problem it has with false positives when a legitimate identity is stolen. However, since employers are provided a safe harbor for using the system in good faith, a false positive will not reflect on the employer. DHS is working hard to keep E-Verify ahead of identity theft and fraud – like all programs reliant on identity verification. DHS is adding to E-Verify the digital photos from IDs issued to non-citizens as well as passport photos to help with visual identification.

THE NEW POOR

New York Times

Millions of unemployed face years without jobs

Buena Park, Calif. — Even as the American economy shows tentative signs of a rebound, the human toll of the recession continues to mount, with millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits…

HERE

BUT: we import 125,000 brand new foreign workers with work permits each month. HERE. Make sense to you?

Ok, here’s the scenario, you have 5 minutes to learn something new about the immigration debate in the US. Take those 5 minutes to learn about E-Verify beginning now!

What is E-Verify?
It is an internet-based system that allows an employer, using information reported on an employee’s Form I-9 to determine the eligibility of that employee to work in the US.

When does the employer receive information on the potential employee?
Initial verification takes 3 to 5 seconds and E-Verify is 96.9% accurate.

Who uses E-Verify?
Employers that want American jobs to go to those legally eligible to work in the US.

Where does E-Verify’s information come from?
The US Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases.

How much does it cost to use?
There is no charge to use E-Veriify and it takes approximately three hours for registration, tutorial and a proof of mastery test.

Does E-Verify verify immigration status?
No. It only states whether or not the employee is legally eligible to work in the US.

Why the objection to E-Verify?
Open borders groups such as the ACLU and the NCLR (National Council of La Raza (The Race)) advocate for the free flow of labor, similar to the free flow of products across borders.

HERE

M3 Report

——————————————————————————–
Unrestricted migration to be proposed
16 Feb 2010 06:48 AM PST

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERS
Visit our website: http://www.nafbpo.org
Foreign News Report

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) extracts and condenses the material that follows from Mexican and Central and South American on-line media sources on a daily basis. You are free to disseminate this information, but we request that you credit NAFBPO as being the provider.To subscribe, click here

El Universo (Guayaquil,Ecuador) 2/15/10

Open Western Hemisphere borders proposed

The Ecuadorian government will ask the Organization of American States (OAS) to promote the free movement of people within the continent in order to curb the deportation of immigrants who are in an “irregular condition” [Read: illegal]. Hernan Holguin, sub-secretary of the Ecuadorian national department that oversees migrant issues, indicated that the matter will be presented before the OAS as “a matter of human rights” and to stop the deportation of “irregular immigrants.”

Holguin expressed the opinion that humanity is advancing toward a “universal citizenship” and that world globalization is not centered only in the movement of merchandise, but also in people, for which reason it is a right for emigrants to come and go in other countries as they wish. The proposal has to do with urging “an integrated migrant policy with full respect for human rights in the framework of human mobility,” he said.

Holguin emphasized that the process of returning to one’s country of origin should be “orderly, planned and supported” in order to avoid situations in which the undocumented immigrant might be arrested for a minor infraction and be deported, thus destroying his life’s future plans. He pointed out that in order to confront this matter, his country, for example, has subscribed to a “migratory agreement” with Peru that is similar to another established by Mexico.

Ecuador estimates that it has one-fifth of its population in migratory status, mostly in the US, Spain and Italy, brought on by an economic crisis in the country in 1999 and considered the worst in its national history.

http://www.eluniverso.com/2010/02/15/1/1360/ecuador-pedira-oea-libre-movilidad.html?p=1360&m=1860

It is difficult to type while I am doing the happy dance.

It’s not that we didn’t know that our work to see our laws enforced drives the illegal aliens away, or that criminal, illegal employers draw the illegals here by hiring them instead of legal workers. It is just so great to see the AJC have to actually report the fact that enforceemnt works.

Contrary to what you read in the below story, there is no Georgia law that has been “enacted sanctioning employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants .” There should be, but there isn’t. We do have a law (Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act of 2006) that requires Public Employers ( state and local governments and official agencies) and their contractors to use E-Verify, but there are no sanctions for violation.

THERE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL LAW ON THIS SINCE 1986, BUT IT GOES LARGELY UNENFORCED.

Illegal immigrants flee law, job loss
By Andria Simmons

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
February 16, 2010

Metro Atlanta’s immigrant population is shifting, if not shrinking.

Latinos are leaving their once-thriving neighborhoods in Gwinnett and Cobb counties in search of friendlier alternatives. It shows in business closures, arrest statistics, church attendance and something as simple as a busy highway turned deserted at night.

A shortage of jobs is behind this exodus. Stepped-up immigration enforcement also is a factor.

In November, the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Department became the fourth law enforcement agency in Georgia to screen inmates for immigration status and hold the undocumented for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Cobb, Hall and Whitfield are the other counties.

Gwinnett County deputies identified 464 inmates who were in the country illegally during the first few months of the program, which is known as 287(g), Sheriff Butch Conway said. Jailers noticed another surprising outcome of the fledgling program: Foreign-born inmates, a category that encompasses illegal immigrants and legal U.S. residents born in other countries, decreased by 32 percent since the program’s inception, compared to the same time frame in 2008.

The sharp decline might signal that illegal immigrants are leaving Gwinnett County to elude potential deportation, or unauthorized immigrants are avoiding contact with law enforcement, either by committing fewer crimes or by making themselves scarce, the sheriff said.

“It’s the proper outcome,” Conway said. “At this point I expect it to continue, probably exponentially.”

Cobb County deputies have handed over more than 6,000 suspected illegal immigrants to federal officials since 2007, when Sheriff Neil Warren pioneered the 287(g) program in Georgia. Over the past two years, there has been a 22 percent drop in undocumented immigrants booked into the Cobb jail.

Yet the bad economy might have as much to do with the recent exodus of Latinos as stepped-up immigration enforcement. Population shifts in the illegal immigrant community are difficult to measure and even harder to explain, said University of Georgia demographer Douglas Bachtel, who studies the Hispanic population.

“The data is problematic because a lot of Hispanics are American citizens, and also because of the difficulty of counting those folks if they are illegal,” Bachtel said.

One of the best ways to track the immigrant population is to analyze public school data, since most Hispanic immigrants enroll their children in school, Bachtel said.

Three out of four of the nation’s unauthorized immigrants are Hispanic, and nearly half of them are couples with children, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

The percentage of Hispanic students enrolled in public schools has remained flat in metro Atlanta counties over the past three years.

A state school data analysis provided to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution showed enrollment in an English language program for non-native speakers has leveled off in Cobb and Gwinnett counties after years of steady growth. These are counties that have 287(g) programs in place.

Meanwhile, English to Speakers of Other Languages enrollment grew in other counties that do not have similar immigration enforcement measures. DeKalb and Douglas counties saw substantial growth in ESOL enrollment, while modest growth was recorded in Hall, Cherokee and Fulton counties.

Elizabeth Webb, division director for innovative programs at the state Department of Education, said English language learners tend to be a very mobile population. However, the reason they move is not something the state or county school systems track.

“It is very anecdotal,” Webb said. “We don’t have any data to share about what motivations are, but I do think it’s mostly economic.”

There are signs that churches, businesses and service providers in the Latino community have experienced a traffic slowdown.

Businesses in Cobb and Gwinnett have suffered staggering losses, said David Ruiz, who owns Shalom Distributors, an Atlanta-based company that supplies dozens of Hispanic grocery stores, gift shops and flea markets with their wares. After Cobb County implemented 287(g), stores that Ruiz supplied there plunged from 30 to five. Ruiz expected similar fallout in Gwinnett.

“The customers are leaving, they go to other states where there is no persecution or they go back to their country,” Ruiz said. “At Spanish neighborhoods, you see a lot of empty businesses.”

Along Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Buford Highway, corridors in Gwinnett where businesses that cater to Hispanics are prevalent, shopkeepers said there is a marked drop-off in customers. Gwinnett has the largest Hispanic population in the state and hundreds of retailers who service a primarily foreign-born clientele.

The Aleysa’s Bridal owner, who declined to give her name, acknowledged she is three months behind on rent for her space at Gwinnett Horizon’s shopping center. Customers evaporated around December, when she witnessed increased police patrols and so many blue lights from traffic stops that “it was like Christmas.”

“Before this area was very good,” she said. “The economy was bad, but we kept going.”

The woman now is considering putting her colorful quinceanera dresses and bridal gowns into storage and closing her shop.

“This situation kills us because people don’t want to come in this area,” she said.

Victor Serrano, who owns a Magic Muffler shop on North Norcross Tucker Road, noticed a decline in Hispanic customers as far back as 2007. That year, a new state law was enacted sanctioning employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants and denied some state services to adults who couldn’t verify they were in the country legally.

In recent months, Serrano has seen even fewer Hispanic customers, especially those whom he suspects are illegal immigrants because they always pay in cash.

“I’ve heard on the radio some of them aren’t driving or are staying out of areas where they could encounter police,” Serrano said. “They don’t want to run the risk of getting caught.”

Pastor Antonio Mansogo, president of the Atlanta Association of Hispanic Pastors, said attendance is down at many area churches where Hispanics worship. His own church, Ministerio Pentecostal Central in Doraville, has been sending a bus into the community so that would-be worshippers can get to church without risking being arrested for driving without a license.

Mansogo also said Jimmy Carter Boulevard, once full of Hispanic drivers and pedestrians in the early evening, now appears almost deserted after 7 p.m.

Claudia Aguilar, a manager at Huntington Village Apartment complex located just off the same street, said occupancy dropped by 10 percent in the past two or three months. People who gave a 30-day notice said 287(g) is the reason.

“A lot of people are leaving because of this law or because there’s no work,” Aguilar said.

The Latin American Association, which has outreach centers in Atlanta, Marietta and Norcross, said the demand for services has not diminished. However, within the past six months, the association has fielded more requests from people seeking help with moving out of the area, chief operating officer Jeffrey Tapia said.

Parents have asked for assistance in obtaining passports for their children, who are U.S. citizens, so they can return to their home country.

“It is really a combination of the economy, the lack of jobs, and the effects of 287(g), in particular in Cobb and Gwinnett, that are affecting people,” Tapia said.

HERE…and YAHOO!

CIS blog

Appeals Court Rules Favorably on State Trooper Questioning of Illegal AliensBy Jessica Vaughan, February 13, 2010

On February 4, a federal appeals court ruled that a Rhode Island state trooper had acted reasonably when questioning foreign nationals he encountered on a traffic stop, and in contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon discovering that they were illegal aliens en route to work. The court rejected arguments from the ACLU, which claimed that asking aliens about their immigration status is unlawful discrimination, and that the call to ICE had unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop. As the Providence Journal editorialized, this decision is “a victory for common sense and the rule of law.”

Here’s what happened: On July 11, 2006, state trooper Thomas Chabot pulled over a 15-passenger van on I-95 south of Providence for failure to signal when changing lanes, an offense that appears frequently in his ticket book, according to a member of his legal team. The driver of the van produced a valid license, registration, and insurance, and said he was taking the passengers to work polishing jewelry in Westerly, RI. Officer Chabot asked the 14 passengers for identification. He later testified that this is standard procedure and that 99 percent of the passengers he encounters can supply it. In this case, one person offered a gym membership card, one offered a non-driver ID, and two presented cards issued by the Guatemalan consulate. None had legitimate identification documents, and they admitted to being illegal aliens.

Chabot conducted a standard background check on the driver, which came back clean. He also contacted ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center. They told Chabot to wait for a call back from the local ICE field office. Three minutes later, the Providence ICE office called back and asked Chabot to escort the van to their office so they could take custody. All 14 passengers were arrested for immigration violations.

This is how the system is supposed to work. ICE gives the most attention to criminal aliens, and it depends on local law enforcement officers to tell them where they are and what they are doing. Most local officers understand that immigration laws are worth enforcing and believe that foreign nationals who have broken laws should face the consequences.

But to the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU, this was a blatant case of racial profiling and unlawful discrimination. It filed a lawsuit on behalf of the driver and 10 of the passengers (the other four apparently just went home to Guatemala). The ACLU maintained that the call to ICE unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop and was based merely on appearance and the fact that the passengers did not speak English. They thought that Chabot should be held personally liable for this “racist” act.

U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi and the panel of three U.S. Court of Appeals judges disagreed. They cited the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena, “that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status” in the context of a legitimate law enforcement action. Before he called ICE, Chabot already knew that the passengers were going to work, had no appropriate identification (and notably mentioned that the consular ID card would reasonably provoke suspicion), and spoke little English, and so it was therefore reasonable for him to look into potential criminal activity on the part of both driver and passengers. The judges felt that these facts gave the officer not only “reasonable suspicion” to ask questions about immigration status, but also “probable cause” to escort the group to ICE, and that he therefore should be immune from liability for his actions.

According to Michael Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, this case is significant because the courts emphasized the role of the alien registration laws in establishing reasonable suspicion to continue questioning and probable cause to detain. (Under U.S. law aliens, unlike U.S. citizens, are required to carry evidence of their lawful status at all times and to present it when asked by an official.) Says Hethmon: “Alien registration laws are a rule-of-law antidote to racial profiling. Law enforcement officers can rely on documents (or the absence of documents) and not ‘articulable facts’ such as language, appearance or experience when deciding how to proceed in questioning an alien.”

In his concurring opinion, the chief judge on the appeals panel repeated this and other concepts emphasized in an amicus brief written by Hethmon and IRLI staff lawyer Garrett Roe on behalf of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

This lawsuit is just one play in a nationwide offensive by anti-enforcement advocacy groups, and now Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, against officers who dare to notify ICE when they run across foreign nationals who have broken laws – mainly state and local laws, not just immigration laws. At a conference at Harvard Law School last week, Monica Ramirez, a young ex-ACLU immigrants rights lawyer who now works in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, announced that they are hiring 62 new attorneys this year and perhaps 100 more next year. Their mission, as she described it, is to go after the epidemic of racial profiling, anti-immigrant discrimination, and hate crimes she claims is sweeping the nation.

The outcome of this case is reassuring, but local law enforcement agencies need to be prepared for predatory legal action such as this one. They should be mindful of the appropriate sequence of questioning when aliens are involved, as well as how to use the resources provided by ICE. If they do get sued, IRLI has the expertise and enthusiasm to assist (if not the legions of staff lawyers). These and other topics will be addressed in the new CIS/LEAPS-TV webinar series on immigration law enforcement and local policing.

HERE

Pilar Verdes, formerly of the foreign language Mundo Hispanico “newspaper”, is now a stringer for WABE radio in Atlanta. WABE is an NPR and PBS affiliate.

Click HERE for an example of Pilar Verdes “reporting”.

I spoke to WABE news director, Michael Feilds, today and he has confirmed Verdes employment. “Pilar works for one day a week as a stringer…” was Feilds’ reply to my inquiry. Verdes called me for an interveiw this morning and told me was working for WABE. Knowing Pilar and WABE’s reputation, I had trouble accepting that as accurate. Amazingly, it is.

As a pro-enforcement American who has been dealing with Pilar’s resentful and argumentative antics – and her agenda – for years, I note that the collective professionalism in journalism at WABE has been reduced greatly with Verdes’ employ.

Next stop, SPLC smear mill?

In a word…YUCK

“…Another $3.4 million grant is to go to the National Council of La Raza in Chicago. ”

HERE

If Congress approves Obama’s proposals:

– The Border Patrol, which doubled to 20,000 agents during the Bush administration, would lose 180 agents through attrition. Border staffing would stay the same.
– A “virtual” fence of pole cameras and sensors aimed at stopping illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists on the U.S.-Mexican border, faces a $225 million cut from $800 million last year. That would delay implementation while a review of the fence, plagued by technical problems, is done.
– Five of the Coast Guard’s 13 elite Maritime Security and Safety Teams, created since 2001 to protect waterfront cities, would be eliminated. Obama is proposing cuts in New York City; San Francisco; Anchorage, Alaska; and King’s Bay, Ga.

HERE

April 02, 2006
Fox News Sunday

Bill KRISTOL: “I’m a liberal on immigration… What damage have they done that’s so great in 20 years? The anti-immigration forces said 20 years ago, there was an amnesty, which there sort of was, the Simpson- Mazzoli bill, which was pushed by the anti-immigration people, that Ronald Reagan signed.”

(Chris) WALLACE: Bill, I want to ask you about — we got a lot of mail from viewers this last week who said we were too cavalier about this question of enforcing the borders. And, frankly, they pointed to some of your comments in particular about the legitimate need to enforce our borders and to punish those people who broke the law. How do you respond to that?

(BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD)KRISTOL: I’m a liberal on immigration. I mean, I think the Bush approach is right. I think the Senate Judiciary Committee approach is right. If Congressman King thinks that it’s a good idea to go around talking about branding people with the letter A for amnesty, if you (inaudible) see how, to use Brit’s word, repellent that is of an image, you know, for, it’s unbelievable. And the Republican Party will go down the tubes if it takes that position.

I disagree with Mara that it’s threading the needle. Bush needs to step up and repudiate those House Republicans and their rhetoric, and make much more of a public case for his comprehensive immigration reform bill. Look, I’m not cavalier about illegal immigrants. I know that we need to have a serious debate about it. What damage have they done that’s so great in 20 years? The anti-immigration forces said 20 years ago, there was an amnesty, which there sort of was, the Simpson- Mazzoli bill, which was pushed by the anti-immigration people, that Ronald Reagan signed.

What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people — what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.? An awful lot of Mexican Americans, an awful lot of sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are fighting in the U.S. Army.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about this, Juan, because I read the e- mails that we get, and people say, particularly in places like Arizona or California, where there is a flood of them, that, you know, we end up having to pay for them. They go to the public schools. They end up, you know, getting welfare or Medicare, Medicaid, things like that. There is a price to illegal immigrants, people who aren’t citizens in this country coming over the border in large numbers.

WILLIAMS: There is a price, and there’s also a benefit, which is to say they benefit the U.S. economy greatly. Now, to your point, Chris, it does put a disproportionate burden on communities where they have a strong influx of immigrants, such as Arizona and some of the border communities, Texas, into California. They have to pay more in terms of hospital costs, the schools, as you pointed out.

But you know, you reach the point where your plan — you’re not catering to fears about illegal immigration, but so much pandering to this fear and encouraging this fear. There is an anchorman on an opposing network — I’ll be polite and not mention him — who is just way, I mean, he has gone bananas, and driving up his numbers.

And what’s he talking about? Illegal immigrants bringing leprosy into the country. At that point, you think, you know what, this is not a logical debate. This is not about substance. This is not about trying to understand the impact of low-income, low-wage workers on other low-wage workers who are already in America, who do you need to protect.

No, this is about pandering to the right-wing base in such a way as to drive up either ratings or election numbers in ’06.

WALLACE: We’ve got 30 seconds, Brit. Is it about pandering?

HUME: On the other hand, the position Bill has taken with a smile on his face that he is soft on illegal immigration, I think is a position that really won’t fly and shouldn’t fly. You simply can’t make a case for immigration reform based on the idea that breaking American laws is OK and ought to be forgiven.

It ought not be forgiven, which is why a combination of enforcement, serious enforcement effort coupled with a guest worker program might be a way to make this work.

For more visit the FOX News Sunday web page HERE