Liberty Republicans Oppose E-Verify Legislation
Proposed Bill Would be a Gross Violation of Personal and Economic Liberty

WASHINGTON, DC — Affirming a long commitment to privacy rights and free enterprise, the Republican Liberty Caucus National Board has joined numerous other pro-liberty organizations in signing a letter in opposition to the “Legal Workforce Act” (HR 2164) and the job-killing and unconstitutional E-Verify system which it would establish.

“Concerns about immigration and hard economic times should not be used as a pretext for legislating away the rights of the people and transferring the cost of immigration enforcement to small businesses,” said RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “I lived in Russia under Soviet Rule when I was a teenager and remember being required to carry an internal passport and present my papers at government check-points.  I do not want my children and my fellow Americans to ever experience that same violation of their privacy and liberty and E-Verify lays the groundwork for exactly that kind of security state.”

This bill will create a de facto national ID card system which would have to apply to citizens as well as immigrants to be effective.  It violates the rights to free speech and free association of citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  It will place a huge cost on businesses, raising costs and killing jobs and forcing them to become the government’s immigration komissars.  It opens the door to further legislation which will take away more liberty and hurt small businesses most of all.

“If the federal government is incapable of tracking the immigrant workforce and enforcing the terms of the visas it issues, that problem can’t be solved by transferring that burden and cost to employers,” observed RLC National Board member Bill Westmiller.  ”Rather than following failed policies with bad law, the government’s goal should be to reform the laws to make them conform with modern reality; make them clear, simple and easily enforced.  Walls, armed guards and spies in the workplace can’t make a bad set of laws good.”

“As a nation our needs are best served by market-based solutions to dealing with immigration. Free labor makes the economy stronger and this sort of draconian legislation will drive more workers off the books and out of the tax rolls, expanding the employment black market and leading to crime and exploitation,” said Chairman Nalle.  ”Since 9/11 we have seen too many attacks on our rights in the name of security and economic expediency. We have seen the Bill of Rights shredded and now Congress plans to make another assault on the frst and fourth amendments.  This cannot be tolerated.”

Working with other concerned groups the Republican Liberty Caucus will be calling on our state chapters and our nationwide network of grassroots activists to demand that Congress stop this headlong rush into more bureaucracy, bigger government, greater surveillance and less freedom.  It is an insult to the founding principles of this nation that this law was ever entered for consideration.  It will be a shame if it makes it out of committee and a crime against every citizen if it is not soundly defeated on the floor.

####

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party.   You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.rlc.org

To view the coalition letter against E-Verify click here.

Nonetheless, the lack of some fully defined positions on immigration doesn’t justify the gratuitous slam directed at him in NumbersUSA’s recent ranking of the presidential candidates.  Admittedly, Numbers USA is a hardcore nativist and protectionist group who I suspect would secretly like to round up all non-white people and deport them even if they are citizens.  That’s still no excuse for grossly misrepresenting Dr. Paul’s record and views in a way which suggests a general attack out of other motives rather than just assessing him negatively on their issues.  If immigration is your one official issue you ought to be able to do better with it than they do ranking Paul.

Their recent attack on Paul takes the form of downgrading his rating on their immigration-related issues from a C- to an F, putting him barely ahead of President Obama’s F-. The problem is that some of their criticisms of Paul don’t actually square with his record and past statements and they even misinterpret statements in his recent book Liberty Defined. Perhaps in response to this critique Paul went on the Jon Stossel show and clarified his positions, repeating statements which he has been making for years and which are well documented.

In their Consumer Reports style ratings, NumbersUSA ranks Paul as “Bad” on Amnesty. Their position is total opposition to amnesty in any form. Yet that has also been Paul’s position for years. He made it clear on the Stossel show and in a 2007 presidential forum he said “I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty.” That has always been his position. How can that earn him their second worst rating on the issue?

They also give Paul their third worst rating of “Unhelpful” on Border Security, yet Paul voted for the construction of a border fence, the kind of spending he normally opposes on principle. They also rated him “Bad” on Reduce Overall Immigration, yet Paul supported cutting off visas for students from terrorist nations, voted to deport illegals who received hospital treatment, and has a 100% rating from FAIR on reducing immigration.

These low ratings in ares where Paul has a strong anti-immigration record suggest that NumbersUSA may be pursuing some sort of political agenda beyond their stated concerns about immigration. It’s like they were looking for ways to specifically hurt Paul with their constituency. This seems grossly unfair and you have to wonder what hidden agenda they are really pursuing. They seem more anti-liberty than they are anti-immigration. Perhaps they started from some faulty assumptions about Paul, but he really isn’t a doctrinaire open-borders style libertarian. His positions are much more traditionally consevative.

The other aspect of this is the question of whether a low rating from NumbersUSA is really such a bad thing. Their positions on immigration and related issues are so extreme that they are far outside of the norm for the Republican Party and the political right in general. It’s arguable that a low rating from NumbersUSA is a sign that you have some good sense on immigration issues. They may be trying to sink Paul unfairly, but that might end up helping him with the larger section of the population which doesn’t believe in draconian anti-immigrant policies.

Paul’s positions on immigration are mostly pretty sensible. He doesn’t have a comprehensive plan in mind, but he does oppose some of the worst ideas on the issue. He doesn’t like singling businesses out for excessive punishment if they employ illegals. He has a very sensible perspective on the fact that immigration is closely linked to the state of our economy and that there are benefits from immigration when the economy is strong and that immigrants go home and reduce their impact when the economy is weak. He’s also strongly opposed to excessive security measures like REAL-ID which would infringe the rights of US citizens.

Paul should probably rate about a D on NumbersUSA’s rankings if they were being fair, but I’m glad he doesn’t rank any higher than that. His position is moderate and sensible and theirs is not. Controlling immigration is important, but the approach promoted by NumbersUSA is extremist and deceptive. Implementing their ideas would be economically devastating. They even oppose legal immigration of skilled workers and they completely write off the need for low-skill labor and any benefits immigrants bring the economy.

Those for whom immigration is a major issue should look at NumbersUSA with skepticism and take the time to check out Ron Paul’s actual statements and how he has voted on the issue. Better to make up your own mind than to look to a source with such obvious biases and a suspect anti-liberty agenda. We may not know whose dirty work NumbersUSA is doing, but we do know that Ron Paul stands for liberty.

There isn’t much current information about REAL ID despite that a major implementation benchmark for the law is scheduled occur in just two months.

The REAL ID Act requires state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards to meet federal standards by a certain date in order to be accepted for federal purposes, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. The Department of Homeland Security sells REAL ID as a tool “to help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents.”

States must now be in full-compliance by May 11, 2011. The penalties for residents in non-compliant states are pretty tame …, or not.

Those innocent, law-abiding citizens will not be able to use their driver’s license to board commercial aircraft, gain access to federal facilities or enter nuclear power plants.

Some Republicans Are Pushing for A National ID Card
_____________________________________

Earlier this week House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano encouraging her to fully implement the REAL ID Act of 2005.

According to FOX News, REAL ID has won support from many anti-immigration advocates because it requires driver’s licenses issued to immigrants to expire at the same time as their stay in the U.S. and therefore invalidates licenses of immigrants who overstay.

According to former Congressman Bob Barr, a privacy advocate, “A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Yet REAL ID is still being implemented. And it’s being implemented despite that half of the states in the country have opted out of REAL ID or have passed resolutions objecting to the national ID law. The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly extended the deadline and reduced the compliance bar to suggest progress on the national ID effort, according to the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper.

What Can Be Done to Stop REAL ID?
_____________________________________

H.R. 1 is the budget bill Republicans are pushing in the House. If passed, it would would fund the government from March 4 through the September 30. Congressman David Price, a Democrat from North Carolina, proposed Amendment #277 to add the following language to the FY 2011 spending bill:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-13).”

This Amendment may be the last opportunity to hit the REAL ID Act before it is thrust onto the American people. While many states have opted out, don’t be so sure that the federal government won’t ignore state opt-outs. It’s much easier for them to implement a national ID card if every state is forced into the plan.

Please ask your members of Congress to support Amendment 277 to H.R. 1. Once implemented, REAL ID will be required by employers to hire you and will restrict your ability to travel in “the land of the free”. It’s imperative that you contact Congress today on this important issue.

(A special thanks to Jim Harper for providing the details on this Amendment.)

Eric Brescia, who is running in a longtime Democrat stronghold in Arlington, Virginia, impressed The Post. Brescia, who is young, articulate, and has strong libertarian leanings, has run a campaign that may well fit his far-left district during an economic crisis due in part to overspending: his campaign emphasized policies that are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative.

The Post said, “[Brescia] is exactly what the Republicans need in Northern Virginia: an independent-minded thinker who has fresh and specific ideas for how to save money in health care and make government work better.”

Brescia is running for an open seat and will face Democrat and Green Party opponents. He spoke to Republican Liberty Caucus members in August at a Republican Liberty Caucus of Northern Virginia meeting.

Notably, the entire campaign platform, media relations, and grassroots effort was organized almost entirely by Republican Liberty Caucus members.

In addition to traditional conservative positions on economics, Brescia has also bucked the party line by supporting civil liberties, equal treatment for gays and lesbians, and fair treatment of immigrants — positions he shares with many RLC members.

However, DeMint leaves much to be desired on social issues. According to the Charleston City Paper, “DeMint’s office has reasserted his commitment to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.” DeMint’s position is not particularly popular: only a small majority (54%) of gay marriage opponents favor amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, according to a 2006 survey.

Opines the paper: “DeMint’s strong support for states rights, while also seeking federal involvement on gay marriage may be indicative of a larger struggle between the religious and libertarian elements of the Republican Party as it rebrands itself.”

So just like the Democrats, DeMint simply picks and chooses what issues he wants government to take an activist role in.

Gay marriage is just the most recent example of the social conservatives’ war on individual choice. And it is but one example of some social conservatives’ interest in nationalizing issues that should not be decided by the federal government.

A 2006 survey of 2,003 adults found that 55% prefer that abortion laws be decided at the national level rather than each state deciding for itself. This desire for a national policy prescription extends to other social issues, too. Despite growing antipathy toward Congress and low levels of trust in the federal government generally, majorities or pluralities also favored a national (rather than state-by-state) approach to policymaking on stem cell research, gay marriage and whether creationism should be taught in the schools along with evolution.

It isn’t just abortion and gay marriage where social conservatives want government to intervene.  In 2006, the Family Research Council surveyed its members on immigration, and, by a ratio of 9 to 1, they believe illegal immigrants should be “detected, arrested and returned to their country of origin.”

I’m not saying that illegal immigration should be tolerated (it shouldn’t be) — although Congress has tolerated it for decades.

But a rational approach to the issue does not entail rounding up millions of people and sending them away.

A Pew poll from 2006, cited by the San Francisco Chronicle, found that two-thirds of white evangelicals consider new immigrants to be a burden and a threat to American culture.  The poll didn’t even include the word ‘illegal’.

Some evangelicals seem to have massive problem with gays and immigrants — and they think the government can (and should) solve their concerns.

How about foreign policy?

Surely the religious right doesn’t want government to intervene there, right?

Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.  In fact, it was with the blessing of many social conservatives who supported unwavering authority for the Bush Administration’s War in Iraq, detaining terrorist suspects without due process rights, and torture policies.

This despite the fact that Christian Just War Theory stresses necessary cause, right intention, last report, and legitimate authority when governments wage a war. And the fact that the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war powers.

Yet the small (quiet) group of Christian evangelicals who questioned the Bush Administration’s policies on Iraq and waterboarding were labeled unpatriotic, anti-American, and bad Christians.

Voltaire once said, “Of all religions, Christianity is without a doubt the one that should inspire tolerance the most.”  Many Christians have been tolerant of others, and a few social conservatives have been able to align with libertarians via the Ron Paul movement.

Those Christians have stayed true to their principles while recognizing that government is not the solution to these complex social problems that plague society.  They need to wake up their socially conservative, evangelical brethren to the fact that using government as a tool of social coercion is unethical–indeed, anti-religious.

“I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance,” said Thomas Jefferson.

Social conservatives need to practice a bit more tolerance and wake up to the fact that asking government to solve these social dilemmas is no different than activists on the left asking government for handouts.

And no different than giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.