| HEARING IN ANNAPOLIS – THURSDAY MARCH 3, 1PM – SUPPORT THE USE OF THE FEDERAL E-VERIFY PROGRAM TO SCREEN ILLEGAL ALIEN WORKERS FROM ALL MARYLAND STATE CONTRACTS
Thursday afternoon, March 3, will be the public hearing for SB 390, which would require that Federal E-Verify System be used to check the legal status of anyone working on a State contract. The bill’s sponsors include Senators Shank, Colburn, Edwards, Getty, Glassman, Jacobs, Pipkin, Reilly, Simonaire, Stone, and Young; and the text of SB 390 is posted at http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/bills/sb/sb0390f.pdf .
E-Verify is an easy-to-use, non-discriminatory, web-based system for determining when a job applicant or employee uses fraudulent information or a stolen identity to apply for employment. E-Verify takes information which an employer is already required to collect about a new hire (e.g., name and social security number) and checks its consistency with Social Security and Homeland Security databases. Employers use E-Verify free-of-charge.
Employers who use E-Verify are immune to liability if they end up mistakenly hiring an illegal alien. E-Verify is extremely accurate as attested by numerous reports, including one completed in Dec, 2009 for the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security and another published by GAO in Dec, 2010.
Without this legislation, Maryland tax dollars will likely be used to employ illegal aliens. Every employed illegal alien results in an unemployed U.S. citizen (or legal resident). Further, businesses which cut costs by hiring illegal aliens below minimum wage and without benefits put law-abiding employers out-of-business AND pass a portion of their business costs onto taxpayers who must fund social services to underpaid illegals and unemployed U.S. citizens. A recent study, The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Marylanders ( www.fairus.org/site/News2/1662078295?page=NewsArticle&id=21907&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1761 ), conservatively estimates that the annual burden to Maryland government associated with illegal aliens is at least $1.4 billion, including…
· $966 million a year to educate illegal alien children and the U.S. born children of illegal aliens and an additional $250 million to provide special English instruction;
· $167 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens;
· $29 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens
In other words, Maryland could have eliminated its budget deficit if employers here stopped employing illegal aliens so that the illegals leave Maryland. Maryland citizens know we have a problem; and a recent poll of 1,000 likely voters found that, by a large margin, Marylanders believe that illegal immigration harms our state (http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/md_poll.pdf?docID=4081 ).
When the State uses contractors, it is outsourcing what otherwise would be done by State employees who must, by law, be U.S. citizens. By not requiring that State contractors use legal residents for State work, the State is undermining its own laws and encouraging illegal immigration. Mandating E-Verify ensures that contractors vie for State work on a level playing field. Hiring illegal aliens is a violation of Federal law, and not taking reasonable steps (such as using E-Verify) to avoid having illegals work for the State undermines Federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and the rule of law. Hiring illegal aliens also aids and abets organized crime.
The Federal government, 11 states, and some Maryland county governments already require that their contractors use E-Verify; and over 240,000 businesses nationwide use E-Verify.
A similar bill was introduced into the General Assembly last year, but it was referred to Legislative Services for “study.” Please tell members of the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee that you want the Committee to vote on SB 390 this year.
Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee (EHEA)
2 West, Miller Senate Building, Annapolis, MD 21401
(410-841-3661 Annapolis/Baltimore or 301-858-3661 Washington, D.C.)
Chair: Joan Carter Conway, 410-841-3145,Joan.Carter.Conway
Vice Chair: Roy P. Dyson, 410-841-3673, Roy.Dyson
Joanne Benson, 410-841-3148, Joanne.Benson
Paul G. Pinsky, 410-841-3155, Paul.Pinsky
Bill Ferguson, 410-841-3600, Bill.Ferguson
Edward R. Reilly, 410-841-3568, Edward.Reilly
J. B. Jennings, 410-841-3706, JB.Jennings
Jim Rosapepe, 410-841-3141, senator. Rosapepe
Karen S. Montgomery, 410-841-3625, Karen.Montgomery
Bryan W. Simonaire, 410-841-3658, Bryan.Simonaire
Ronald N. Young, 410-841-3575, Ronald.Young
IMPORTANT: When communicating with legislators, or with anyone for that matter, remain civil and non-threatening. Don’t let anyone sucker you into making personal attacks. Just state the facts, which are scary enough!
BE PREPARED - to share the hallway and hearing room with the taxpayer funded from the illegal alien support group CASA of Maryland, the ACLU, and other illegal alien supporters.
PLEASE DO NOT BOTHER OR ENGAGE ANY OF THE PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN CROWD.
DIRECTIONS & PARKING: From Route 50 – Take Exit 24 onto Rowe Boulevard towards Annapolis, turn right at 2nd onto Taylor Avenue, then 5th right on far side of Navy-Marine Stadium (near jet plane) into Stadium Parking Lot Gate 5 (pay $5)Walk to bus shelter at Parking Lot and board Free Shuttle to Government Buildings. Shuttle runs every 15 minutes. Ask to be dropped at Lawyers Mall/Senate/House Buildings. Reverse instructions when heading home.
DRESS – Business casual is fine. Look good as you are representing HSM and the Citizens of Maryland! Bring snacks/food and drinks as facilities are very limited.
BRING PHOTO ID to gain entrance to the buildings. NO knives, guns etc.
BRING – reading material as these hearing can go on for hours.Use the free time to meet other HSM members in the hallway and corridors. Look for HSM members wearing “NO CASA de Maryland” stickers and you will be with like minded citizens.
Questions? Contact: Brad Botwin, Director, HSM -240-447-1884,bb67chev
NEED A RIDE TO ANNAPOLIS OR CAN TAKE OTHERS? SENDA MESSAGE ASAP!
If you need help registering to testify at the March 3rd hearing, you can contact Mr. Joe Dacey, Legislative Aide to Senator Christopher Shark, who first introduced SB 390.
If you wish to testify, please arrive at the Committee room BEFORE 12 noon and sign in SUPPORT to SB 390. If you have written testimony, please submit 25 copies to the committee staff by 12:00 Noon for distribution prior to the hearing; after 12:00 Noon, please submit at the time you testify. You do not have to submit a statement to testify.
View from Annapolis: Tuition break for illegal aliens constitutes an ‘egregious benefit’
By Sen. J.B. Jennings
District 7 – Harford and Baltimore counties
Approximately three years ago, I was at my desk in the House Ways and Means committee hearing room watching and listening. The room was crowded with people spanning from special interest organizations, to lawmakers, to citizens, statewide, all present for a single purpose: House Bill 1236.
House Bill 1236 entitled “Higher Education – Tuition Charges – Maryland High School Students” would have entitled illegal immigrants to be exempt from paying nonresident tuition at public institutions of higher education in Maryland. If passed, the bill would have taken effect on July 1, 2008, and required the governing board of each public institution of higher education to adopt policies to implement this bill. Fortunately, House Bill 1236 never made it to the House Floor for a vote.
This issue is no stranger to the Maryland Legislature. In 2003, the General Assembly passed House Bill 253, entitled, “Higher Education – Resident Tuition Charges – Immigrant Students and United States Military Personnel and Dependents.” The bill permitted illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition at a public institution of higher education in Maryland; however, former Gov. Bob Ehrlich vetoed the legislation.
In his veto letter, the governor gave several policy reasons for vetoing the bill. Foremost, to grant in-state status to illegal aliens would violate a federal law enacted in 1996, and would reward illegal behavior. Gov. Ehrlich also addressed the fiscal cost to the state could be potentially large. He also opined that additional community college students included in the enrollment counts would increase the state’s obligations under the Sen. John A. Cade funding formula. Finally, the governor raised concerns that the bill would have allowed undocumented immigrants to take in-state slots from legal Maryland residents.
Despite the former governor’s position, the very same legislation that was vetoed in 2003 was resurrected during the 2007 and 2008 sessions. State legislators who were proponents of the bill believed it would have better success becoming state law as a result of the change of administrations.
House Bill 6, “Higher Education – Tuition Charges – Maryland High School Students,” was only successful in passing in the House in 2007.
Three years later and after three failed attempts, the Democratic leadership has once again re-introduced the same legislation during this year’s General Session in the form of Senate Bill 167, “Higher Education – Tuition Charges – Maryland High School Students.” It was heard Feb. 16 before the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, of which I am a member.
Although the language specifically contained within the bill defines “specific individuals” as “individuals, other than a student within the meaning of the United States Code, it does not clearly articulate who these “specific individuals” are. In the most, simplest terms, the most basic definition, they are illegal immigrants.
To permit illegal aliens to receive free public education in the United States has been a highly debated and controversial issue ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision 29 years ago. In 1982, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, held a state statute that denied free public education to illegal immigrant children in violation the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because denial on the basis of alienage did not further a substantial state interest. The case was Plyler v. Doe. In Plyler, the Court determined the Texas law was “directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control” – namely, because their parents had brought them into the United States, illegally.
Since 1996, federal immigration law has prohibited illegal immigrants from obtaining a post-secondary education benefit; however, States have found a means around federal law. Several states have successfully enacted legislation that provides in-state tuition benefits for “illegal immigrants” based on where a student went to high school, not immigration status.
Listening to same testimony that was presented in 2007, 2008, and now in 2011, I could not help but wonder why so many of my Democratic colleagues are so adamant to make this legislation become Maryland Law. Much to their displeasure, in my humble opinion, I share the same position as my constituents and the citizens of Maryland, that this legislation is unnecessary and unwanted.
Under the bill’s current form, the state’s expenditures would substantially increase for the worst. The legislative services’ fiscal note for Senate Bill 167 indicates that the state’s expenditures for the Sen. John A. Cade funding formula would “increase by at least $778,400 in FY 2014.” These numbers relatively indicate Maryland’s cost per full-time student to be $2,100 in fiscal year 2014. Moreover, legislative services projected by fiscal 2016 the additional general fund expenditures resulting from this bill could exceed $3,505,700.
These numbers clearly substantiate the very same reasons represented in Gov. Ehrlich’s letter after he vetoed the legislation in 2003. Furthermore, the money generated to fund this egregious benefit would ultimately derive from the wallets of every citizen, legally residing in Maryland – yet, another burden the General Assembly may place upon the shoulders of every Maryland taxpayer.
Secondly, in Plyler, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision addressed the fact that the state statute imposed a discriminatory burden on illegal alien children brought to the United States, illegally, by their parents. They had little or no control over their own decisions or lives at that time.
Unlike here, the individuals that Senate Bill 167 attempts to aid are not children, they are grown adults that are fully capable of making an educated decision on whether to become a United States citizen that will allow themselves to receive the rights and privileges under the United States and Maryland Constitutions or to remain a criminal.
As to the States that have already passed legislation that provides in-state tuition benefits for “illegal immigrants” based on where a student went to high school, not immigration status, some are having trepidation on their decision. In 2008, the National Conference of State Legislatures issued a report which indicated that at least four of the states that have passed laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants have since considered repealing the laws.
When an individual breaks a federal, state, or local law they are considered a criminal punishable by the law. An illegal immigrant is committing a criminal act by illegally residing within the borders of the United States, so why when it comes to the issue of higher education does the Maryland State Legislature continue to digress from enforcing the laws on illegal immigration and strive to reward these individuals who violate our laws, daily. If we fail to enforce our laws now, we stand to lose everything in the future.
To pass this legislation or any other form of its kind goes against the very fibers of our Constitutions (United States and Maryland), the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler, and the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
It is for these reasons, I oppose Senate Bill 167.
http://www.exploreharford.com/politics/8144/view-annapolis-tuition-break-illegal-aliens-constitutes-egregious-benefit/
MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE CHIEF TOM MANGER QUIVERS IN FEAR AS THE MANDATORY DEADLINE TO IMPLEMENT THE FEDERAL “SECURE COMMUNITES” PROGRAM GETS CLOSER. HE BEGS FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO HAVE MONTGOMERY COUNTY BE THE LAST IN MARYLAND TO ELECTRONICALLY FINGERPRINT AND FORWARD PRINTS TO IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) AGENTS FOR SCREENING.
CURRENTLY THE COUNTY SUBMITS A WEEKLY LIST, WRITTEN IN CRAYON, OF SUSPECTED ILLEGALS BY NAME (PROVIDED BY THE SUSPECT) TO ICE RATHER THAN PROVIDE FINGERPRINTS OF EACH SUSPECT.
MANGER KNOWS THAT COUNTY JAILS ARE CRAWLING WITH ILLEGAL ALIEN SUSPECTS WHO WOULD BE WHISKED AWAY FOR DEPORTATION BY ICE. MANGER IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT CASA OF MARYLAND THEN HE IS ABOUT THE SAFEFY OF COUNTY CITIZENS.
Federal immigration program is applied inconsistently in region
By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post
Sunday, February 27, 2011; C01
When D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier heard about a new federal immigration enforcement program last year, she said it could have prevented eight killings in the city in the previous two years.
But her enthusiasm was tempered by a concern that the program, designed to detect suspects in police custody who are undocumented immigrants, would also ensnare people who had committed minor offenses, prompting immigrants not to report crimes and domestic abuse to police.
Lanier worked behind the scenes last year with federal officials to redesign the program in potentially far-reaching ways, according to recently released internal documents by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
But Lanier’s attempt to get the program to focus on serious offenses was stymied when the D.C. Council and community groups expressed reservations about participating in any fashion. Eventually, the city withdrew from the program.
Lanier’s efforts offer a glimpse into the myriad ways in which communities in the Washington region and across the nation have grappled with the controversial immigration enforcement program known as Secure Communities. The District’s experience also reveals how inconsistent federal guidelines have created widespread confusion. Arlington County, for example, was forced to participate in the program against its will. Other jurisdictions, such as the District and Montgomery County, have been given significantly more latitude.
The Secure Communities program grew out of recommendations by the 9/11 Commission and has become a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s effort to focus immigration enforcement on criminals.
Under the program, fingerprints routinely collected by local authorities are forwarded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a status check. If a fingerprint is matched with someone known to be in the country illegally, ICE can order the immigrant’s detention as a first step toward deportation.
Initially, federal immigration officials promised many local governments that their participation would be voluntary. But in late 2009 and 2010, the officials modified their assurances. They began telling communities that the only voluntary part of the program was that a jurisdiction could choose not to receive information about why ICE wanted police to detain someone – a relatively minor aspect of the program.
“Because Secure Communities is fundamentally an information-sharing partnership between federal agencies, state and local jurisdictions cannot opt out from the program, though state and local jurisdictions can opt not to receive the results of immigration queries,” ICE spokesman Brian Hale said.
Hale said he expected that every jurisdiction in the country would be actively participating in the program by 2013. He credited the program with apprehending more than 59,000 undocumented immigrants who committed crimes, including about 21,000 who had committed serious offenses such as murder, rape and child sexual abuse.
Last fall, the Arlington County Board cited the risk the program posed to community policing efforts and voted not to participate. But federal officials told the county that local jurisdictions cannot decide to opt out.
In Maryland, the situation is more mixed than it is in Virginia, where every jurisdiction in the state is participating in Secure Communities. The program has been activated in more than half of Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions, including Prince George’s, Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties, according to ICE. The city of Baltimore is not yet participating in the program.
Although it is not clear why, Montgomery County appears to have been given leeway in joining the program, according to internal documents from ICE obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by various immigration and legal advocacy groups.
“Montgomery County is neither opting-in nor opting-out of the program,” Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said in a statement. “When [Secure
Communities] comes to the entire state of Maryland, we will participate.”
Manger also said the county routinely shares with ICE the names of all suspects who have been arrested in violent or dangerous crimes, along with any available information about their nationalities.
In an interview, Lanier said that she had hoped to find a middle ground that targeted violent and dangerous offenders for immigration checks while withholding the fingerprints of suspects whom police picked up for minor offenses.
“In the case of domestic violence, or if it is a minor misdemeanor case, there is a concern people will not come forward and report it,” she said, explaining why she thought suspects picked up in minor crimes should not be referred for an immigration status check.
She also said she was concerned that domestic abuse wouldn’t be reported because the victims would fear the deportation of family members. “If they don’t report it before it escalates, we don’t have a chance to stop it before it escalates.”
Lanier said she had conversations on modifying the program with members of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s office. She characterized federal officials as cooperative and said she had hoped that a modified program could create a new model for the nation. The District, she added, does not run suspects’ names through any immigration databases.
After the D.C. Council expressed opposition to joining the program – and immigration advocacy groups voiced strong opposition to the program in any form – Lanier said she broke off the discussion with federal officials and pulled out of the program.
Federal immigration authorities “permitted the District not to participate until 2013,” Lanier said. “I was trying to negotiate some kind of agreement before it became mandatory in 2013. It’s a different ballgame now.”
Advocates for immigrants remain worried that the program is an overly broad dragnet.
“The program’s mandate is to target serious criminals that pose a threat to public safety,” said Sarahi Uribe of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which obtained the internal documents through the FOIA request.
“We’ve seen a majority of those identified and deported pose no threat to public safety.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022603863_pf.html
WHILE MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE CHIEF MANGER HIDS IN FEAR TO PROTECT ILLEGAL ALIENS, THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS NOW FULLY COOPERATING WITH THE FEDERAL “SECURE COMMUNITIES” PROGRAM. |
seriously tho…she’s [Irene] pretty angry
