Saturday, April 18, 2009

Well this is interesting...

The Obama administration is again delaying implementation of a rule that would require government contractors to verify the immigration status of their employees. Contractors won’t have to use the Homeland Security Department’s E-Verify system until June 30, according to a Federal Register notice published Friday.

The really interesting part is there were only six results when I searched Google News for "Obama e-verify", and they were publications dealing solely in government or HR news (I learned about it from an e-mail from NumbersUSA). Either the MSM hasn't picked it up--note it was released on a Friday, for maximum disinterest--or no one thinks it's worth reporting. I'll check back tomorrow.
Plaintiffs in the court case, which includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue the rule violates the law by requiring government contractors to use a system that is voluntary for other employers.
Haven't we already seen this with TARP? If you want that sweet gubbament money, you gotta dance for it. Granted, these businesses are provided actual products or services for their money, but I'm sure they make custom arrangements to please customers every day.
Plaintiffs also claim the rule is too vague and will force contractors to verify all employees to avoid potential suspension and debarment, which would be a financial hardship.
I'm not sure where they pulled that from, as the law says very plainly that only new hires after the date--now June 30--should be verified. Sneak 'em in now, boys. Businesses shouldn't have to enforce the laws, the laws should be enforced at the border and by police at all levels--but I don't believe this is a real motivation.

Quasi-related, here's a sob story from a mainstream newspaper about a citizen "forced" to seek welfare after her illegally-resident Haitian husband was deported, 16 years after entry. I'm having a hard time mustering up sympathy--she had a choice whether or not she married and had babies with this specific man, she chose to not work while knowing her husband could be deported, etc.

OTOH, I want to know when he "applied for asylum" because if it's taking 16 years to decide asylum cases, that's too long. Since the guy left Haiti, Clinton deposed Aristide, then he came back, then he was permanently exiled, then his friend was elected...the outcome could have been different at any point. I suspect he only applied after an earlier investigation into his status.
"Deportation is no different than any law enforcement action,'' said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. "If people are not self-sufficient as a consequence of a spouse breaking the law, that's not a good reason not to enforce the law.''
(I was going to imagine what our cities would be like if it was, but they're mostly not married...nevermind.)

And finally--Ace writes up this sort of phenomenon as "government program works as designed, media outraged":
Recently, the mother of two [a different mother] went to Family Central to get state assistance for child care. She was denied, she said, because the agency determined she earns too much as a medical assistant.
Yeah, damn shame you can't take advantage of a program designed for people less able to help themselves than you are. She then goes on to bitch about student loans and credit card debt. I can be sympathetic about the loans to a point--Did she take out extra to buy a cool laptop? Did she go to the local community college or a swank private school? Did she really need the degree for her job? If the loans are through the feds, did she ask for a hardship deferment?--but credit cards? That's all on you, honey. You used the items or enjoyed the meals or whatever with the understanding that you'd be expected to pay for them at some point...and now you want other people to pay for your childcare so you can make those payments? Grow up.

Further, note the article doesn't mention any men who can't function after their wives are deported. It would be interesting to know why this is--could they find none? Does the public not feel the same sympathy for men who make dumb choices?

(Full disclosure: I racked up five figures of CC debt traveling and buying stuff when I was in grad school, then spent the next five years being broke and trapped and bored to tears while every spare penny went to paying it off. So I understand how CC debt is crippling, but I also understand it's a choice people make. And my student loans were about the size of a house downpayment--but again, that was my stupid choice. You'll notice I don't complain about repayment, only about the ways government wants to manipulate the housing market and the economy, and tax my wages, ensuring I'll never be able in the future to save up a down payment or find a monthly repayment I can afford on my one--when I have a job, I'm seriously exploring fields that can't be offshored--income. Sigh.)

No comments: