Posted on 04/05/2006 10:02:53 AM PDT by bordergal
Business owners and business managers, please phone your Senators today
NEW POLL OF BUSINESS OWNERS FINDS THEY SUPPORT WORKPLACE VERIFICATION AND LOWER IMMIGRATION
I believe that more than any other voice, yours are the ones that need to be heard in Senate offices today.
The rhetoric on the Senate floor in favor of a massive amnesty and increase in immigration is dominated by claims that businesses would collapse without the foreign labor.
The problem is that Senators hear mainly from the DC lobbyists for major business organizations and from the minority of business owners in their states who want to keep the option of hiring illegal aliens.
They rarely hear from people like you -- and you are people like most business owners in America, according to the new poll by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Please read the description of the poll in this letter from House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).
Then, please pick up a phone and call offices of both of your state's Senators. Identify yourself from the very beginning by your business connection.
Use this Senate switchboard phone number
202-224-3121
There are 7,831 of you who have checked on your Interest Survey that you are a business owner or business manager. To make enough impression on the U.S. Senate before its big amnesty vote on Thursday, most of you are going to need to make that call.
I mentioned in an earlier Action Alert that I sent this morning that our NumbersUSA Board of Directors is in town this week to help with the fight.
You should find it interesting that all the members of our Board are business people, most founding and running small to large corporations. These are people who believe that business interests and the interests of the American public should not be diametrically opposed. These are the kind of patriotic business people that believe they are part of a national community.
And, according to this new poll, our board is filled with business people who are typical of most business people across America.
Help your Senators understand that using business interests to justify mass amnesty and immigration increases not only is bad for the country -- it is bad for business.
THANK YOU,
-- ROY
April 4, 2006
Dear Colleague:
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) recently released the results of a scientific survey it conducted to determine the views of the small businesses it represents on the subject of immigration. The results of this survey demonstrate that small business owners - like most Americans - believe that our immigration laws must be vigorously enforced. The most significant findings are as follows:
Asked whether an electronic employment eligibility verification system would be a burden, 76% of small businesses said it would be a "minimal burden" or "not a burden." Seventy-eight percent (78%) of employers surveyed support increased penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.
Over 90% of small-business owners believe illegal immigration is a problem, with 70% calling it a "serious" or "very serious" problem. Eighty-six percent (86%) say that immigration should be a "very high" or "high" priority for Congress.
The primary reason small business owners see illegal immigration as a problem is the cost to taxpayers for illegal immigrants (47%). Eighty-six percent (86%) of small business owners would deny illegal immigrants access to public support.
A plurality of small-business owners (43%) say that too many legal immigrants are admitted each year, with 38% saying the number is about right.
About half of those surveyed said there should be no amnesty under any circumstances, but about 44% would support it for immigrants who are employed but not dependent on government assistance. Well over half (65%) do not favor offering amnesty even if a person can prove that they have lived in the U.S. 3 years or more.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of respondents support a guest worker program that would allow immigrants to work for a specified period of time and return home.
Several findings are significant with regard to H.R. 4437, passed by the House in December 2005. First, small business owners overwhelmingly support tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens. Second, employers - particularly small business owners - do not feel that an electronic employment eligibility program such as contained in H.R. 4437 would be burdensome.
Sincerely,
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. Chairman House Judiciary Committee
I had a home built in Olympia, WA not that long ago. My home was built by local contactors, who did everything from foundation, to framing, drywall, painting and tilework.
I moved to Austin, and had a home built here as well. Here, a vast majority of the workers who did the cement work, framing, drywall, painting, tilework, ect did not speak english. I do have questions as to their legal status.
Here's the kicker. The size and style of the houses were similar; and when you remove the cost of the land, the cost of each house was about the same.
The difference is that, *if* illegals work cheaper than legal citizens, the contractor is making extra profits. We do not need illegals for our economy any more than our economy demanded slavery nearly 200 years ago.
It doesn't seem to me that it would be very difficult, or much of an invasion of privacy, to utilize the Social Security Database to check on whether a job applicant is here illegally. The applicant could be asked to provide the Soc Sec Number, along with his name and date of birth. The prospective employer could then enter the data online, and get a one-word answer--"Verified" or "Unverified."
This would get rid of all fraud which consists of made-up nine-digit numbers, and a good deal of the fraud related to stolen cards. The employer could keep a printout of the "Verified" ID as proof of compliance. If the illegal has an ID good enough to fool the Social Security Database, the employer would not be held liable, provided that the date of birth information was reasonably consistent with the applicant's appearance.
True, but the ACLU is against it. I believe they are trying to keep just such a provision out of current legislation.
If the ACLU is against it, then it's definitely a good idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.