Stop the FTAA, On to Miami!

Thousands will be marching in the streets of Miami, Florida, during the week of Nov. 17-21, protesting the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). They will pour into Miami from all over the country and from all over the world. The protesters will be trade unionists, anti-globalization activists, environmentalists, family farmers, religious activists, civil and human rights activists. Thousands will come to Miami to make their voices heard at a meeting of trade ministers from around the Americas.

This, the eighth trade ministerial meeting to discuss the FTAA, is widely viewed as a critical step toward its creation. The official proceedings will take place on Nov. 20-21. The ministers plan to make Miami the permanent headquarters of the FTAA bureaucracy.

The FTAA is a North and South American hemispheric trade agreement that will enhance the influence of U.S. monopolies and corporate economic domination on both continents. The proposed agreement involves 34 countries. Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere not participating. The U.S. aims to have a treaty in place by January of 2005.

The proposed FTAA trade agreement has been described as “NAFTA on steroids.” NAFTA, the existing North American Free Trade Agreement, has so far resulted in the loss of over one million jobs in the U.S., mostly in manufacturing. In Mexico NAFTA has driven an additional eight million people into poverty. An estimated 28,000 small businesses in Mexico have folded due to unfair competition from huge transnational corporations. Since NAFTA, over a million additional workers in Mexico now make less than $4.60 a day, the minimum wage in that country.

FTAA will accelerate and geometrically increase this “race to the bottom” for all workers in the hemisphere. FTAA will extend the reach of NAFTA (read U.S. and other multinational corporations) to cover 800 million people. This is double the number covered by NAFTA. The FTAA’s expansion will mean about a 400 percent increase in the number of low-wage workers competing for jobs.

If approved, the FTAA will become the world’s largest “free trade” zone. The FTAA will greatly increase the potential power and scope of corporations and banks over local and national economies. The FTAA proposals now being negotiated will extend pro-corporate “free trade” rules to cover many service and financial interests. These include things like the insurance industry, health care, energy, education, transportation, and construction.

Just as NAFTA has been devastating to manufacturing in the U.S., FTAA will accelerate this “race to the bottom” effect by greatly increasing the mobility of capital in the service industries. In fact, with new technologies like the internet and advanced communications, FTAA will mean much quicker and greater job loss for U.S. service workers. And, as has been the case with manufacturing under NAFTA, it will mean even greater poverty and misery for those in areas where work is shifted in pursuit of low wages.

Needless to say, FTAA will not expand labor rights and environmental standards. Both labor and the environmental movement fought long and hard to build a vast coalition to defeat NAFTA. While NAFTA was ratified, it was by a slim majority. Even so, the anti-NAFTA coalition had grown to include most mainstream civil rights, human rights, women, youth, religious and even many small business groups.

This broad people’s coalition forced side agreements to the NAFTA treaty that were supposed to deal with labor and environmental standards. But these side agreements turned out to be a total sham. As of this writing very few labor or environmental violations have been resolved. In most cases, complaints have resulted in stonewalling because there are no mechanisms for forcing companies to comply with labor or environmental standards.

For example, Sony workers in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, brought complaints against Sony and the Mexican government for conspiring together to deny workers the right to organize an independent union at the plant. The company fired workers trying to organize and worked with the government to guarantee that the company union won the election in violation of Mexican labor law. They also used police violence to break up a peaceful picket by the independent union. Even though the NAFTA officials who heard the case agreed that there were serious labor violations, no workers were reinstated, no penalties were assessed, and no independent union was allowed to be organized.

The FTAA negotiators have already made it clear that the new treaty will also have no enforcement power on labor and environmental standards. Meeting in Quito, Ecuador, in 2002, the treaty negotiators set forward a pious sounding set of “principles” on labor and the environment. But number eleven from their statement says it all: “We reject the use of labor or environmental standards for protectionist purposes. Most Ministers recognized that environmental and labor issues should not be utilized as conditionalities nor subject to disciplines, the non-compliance of which can be subject to trade restrictions or sanctions.”

NAFTA has been a disaster in agriculture and FTAA only promises to make matters worse. NAFTA has made it easier for large agribusiness to control prices and markets across all borders. Both U.S. and Mexican farmers have seen their incomes decline.

NAFTA has also aggravated immigration issues. The continued impoverishment of Mexican workers and farmers has forced thousands more to leave home in search of jobs to support their families. NAFTA and FTAA are all about freedom of capital to migrate without any barriers, but labor is not allowed the same rights. Instead, these treaties have contributed to new levels of immigrant bashing, racist hysteria and anti-foreign sentiment.

Another key issue that has emerged from bad experience with NAFTA is violations of local and national sovereignty and democracy. The most famous case involves the Canadian postal system. In 2000, United Parcel Service (UPS) sued the Ottawa government for $230 million in damages under provisions of NAFTA. The suit claimed that Canada was hurting UPS’s business with its national postal service monopoly, Canada Post. UPS is suing for damage to future profits claiming that the postal monopoly has an unfair advantage in its express package service. The case is still pending.

Another case involved Canada and its ban on the carcinogen MMT, a gasoline additive dangerous to the human immune system. Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical giant, successfully sued Canada under NAFTA. The Canadian government had to pay $13 million U.S. dollars and drop the ban on MMT.

Switching the players, a Canadian chemical company, Methanex, is suing the state of California because it outlaws another gasoline additive, MTBE, demanding that the state rescind the law or pay damages for lost profits.

Yet another well-known case involves a suit against a local Mexican government in the state of San Luis Potosi by Metalclad, a U.S.-based company. When the Mexican government dared to insist on a regulatory process for Metalclad to reopen a toxic waste dump, the company sued, stating that its right to make a profit had been infringed upon. Metalclad won in a secret three-person tribunal, and was paid $17 million U.S. dollars.

These examples also illustrate the “free trade” attack on basic democracy and the destruction of the people’s right to demand government protection of their interests. It has long been the social compact of this country, and most others, that the government acts for the people to protect citizens against unbridled corporate monopolies and power. This democratic and protective role of government is deeply embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Yet NAFTA provides companies the mechanism to challenge and even overthrow this government function. FTAA would even go further by expanding the use of secret tribunals and mechanisms now in place under NAFTA.

Another anti-democratic feature of the FTAA is the secrecy surrounding the negotiations. The original talks between trade ministers were begun in deep concealment in 1994. As word leaked out, public demands for transparency, especially from labor and the anti-globalization movement, forced them somewhat into the daylight. Nevertheless, the actual language of the agreement was long shrouded in secrecy and only belatedly published due to intense protest.

While there are no labor, environmental or civil society representatives at the negotiating table, 500 corporate representatives have the necessary secret clearances to read all documents and to participate in deliberations of FTAA drafting and working committees.

American labor has been in on the ground floor of raising the alarm on FTAA. The AFL-CIO, working with ORIT, a regional labor organization that includes most of the major labor federations in the hemisphere, held the first labor forum and demonstration against FTAA at the Denver, Colorado, trade ministers meeting in 1995. American labor and the AFL-CIO have increased their participation in FTAA protests exponentially ever since.

The Seattle demonstrations against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1999 marked a new stage in opposition to corporate controlled “free trade” in the United States. The labor movement was the critical force around which such a broad coalition of forces gelled in Seattle. Many observers remarked on the “Teamsters and Turtles” phenomenon representing the impressive new unity of labor and the environmental movements in opposing corporate controlled globalization. But the coalition was much bigger and broader, including farmers, women, civil rights and all manner of nationally and racially oppressed people’s organizations, youth, and religious activists.

The Miami protests are shaping up to be even bigger than Seattle, not only in size, but also in their breadth and potential impact. Already the AFL-CIO, and the industrial unions in particular, are working hard to mobilize for Miami. The AFL-CIO has initiated an “I vote no on the FTAA” campaign in the U.S.: www.unionvoice.org/campaign/ftaaballot. The initiative comes out of the Hemispheric Social Alliance, a coalition of unions and community allies from all of the Americas. Plans are to deliver millions of ballots and postcards opposing the FTAA from all around the hemisphere.

The newly formed Industrial Union Council of the AFL-CIO has an ambitious plan of mobilization for Miami. It includes targeting key cities in “battleground” states and designating key unions that are strong in each area to head up the efforts.

Both the Steelworkers and the Teamsters, big participants in Seattle, are hitting the ground running. The Steelworkers have scheduled their executive board meeting and are also calling a conference of their Rapid Response activists at the same time in Miami, just prior to the demonstrations.

The 2004 U.S. presidential elections will figure large in deliberations about the FTAA. George Bush accelerated the FTAA talks after taking office and many consider him vulnerable because of the bad economy and the worsening trade imbalances.

Already an exciting mixture of marches, demonstrations and educational activities are being planned for the entire week of Nov. 17-21 in Miami. The week will feature a “People’s Gala,” an evening of speakers, entertainment and cultural presentations.

Many interesting workshops, seminars, and forums are being planned through out the week. And of course there will be a massive march and rally now planned for Nov. 19. Local coalitions are forming all over the place to mobilize for Miami. For a preliminary list of sponsoring organizations see: www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/TAKE_ACTION_/articles.cfm?ID=10098

Scott Marshall is a vice-chairman of the Communist Party USA and serves as chairman of the Party’s National Labor Commission. He can be reached at scott@rednet.org

20 Questions for Congress About Immigration

Will you vote against amnesty for illegal aliens, which puts people who violate our laws ahead of those who lawfully apply for entry?

Will you vote to repeal Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Lottery, which admits 50,000 aliens per year, mostly from non-Western countries including countries that sponsor terrorism?

Will you vote to direct the State Department to stop issuing visas in foreign countries that sponsor terrorism?

Will you vote to close our borders to illegal aliens, illegal drugs, and contagious diseases by whatever means necessary, including electronic fences and National Guard troops?

Will you vote to require visual inspection of the contents of at least 50% of trucks coming across our border (instead of the current 1% to 2%)?

Will you vote to prohibit the State Department from negotiating a plan with Mexico to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens?

Will you vote to repeal the federal requirement that hospitals must give free medical care, including scarce organ transplants, to illegal aliens (an unfunded mandate that is bankrupting many hospitals and increasing the price of medical care to Americans)?

Will you vote to cut federal funding to state universities that give lower in-state tuition to illegal aliens (in violation of federal law), or that refuse to cooperate with the foreign student tracking system?

Will you vote to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens who betray their oath of U.S. citizenship by claiming "dual citizenship" with their native country?

Will you vote to require strict health screening of foreigners entering the U.S. in order to stop the extraordinary rise in cases of tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, West Nile virus, and other foreign diseases?

Will you vote to cut federal highway funds to states that issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens (since many 9/11 hijackers boarded the fatal planes by showing their driver's licenses)?

Will you vote to forbid government agencies to accept foreign-issued cards (the matricula consular) as acceptable I.D.s?

Will you vote to cut federal funding to cities that have "sanctuary" laws (in violation of federal law) that prohibit local police from identifying and reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities?

Will you vote to abolish federal requirements to provide foreign-language ballots, since the ability to speak, read and write basic English is a requirement to become a naturalized citizen and only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote?

Will you vote to stop or severely limit corporate use of L-1 and H-1B visas (which replace American workers with cheap foreign labor), and to prohibit government agencies from hiring foreigners instead of Americans?

Will you vote to stop the racket of smuggling very-pregnant aliens into the United States so they can give birth to their babies in the U.S. (thereby becoming immediately eligible for citizenship and welfare)?

Will you vote for a time-out on immigration and visas until Homeland Security has a functioning computer system to track aliens through smart I.D. cards (but rejecting the un-American notion that U.S. citizens should carry federal I.D. cards)?

Will you vote to rescind Clinton's Executive Order 13166 that requires anyone who receives federal funds (such as doctors and hospitals) to provide their services in foreign languages?

Do you favor a general policy of drawing a bright line of difference between U.S. citizens and aliens, so that law-abiding American citizens are not treated like potential terrorists or hijackers?

Will you join the House or Senate Immigration Caucus?

For Life's Sake, Close Our Borders
How many people will die before the Bush Administration realizes that the most humane act it can take is to close our southern border to illegal traffic and eliminate the incentive to unscrupulous smugglers who take the calculated risk that financial profits outweigh the costs of getting caught? The death from dehydration and heatstroke of 19 out of 100 people crammed into a tractor-trailer that was discovered near Houston in May was only the latest in a long series of similar tragedies.

The profitable racket of smuggling illegals into the United States in sealed trucks has been going on for years, and only death makes it newsworthy. Trucks ought to be inspected when they cross the border, for the illegal aliens' protection as well as for American sovereignty.

Smugglers reap millions of dollars in profits. They collect their fees up front ($800 to $2,500 per person), then often abandon their clients in desert areas without food or water, or hold them hostage in "drop houses" for ransom from relatives. Last year, 145 illegals died horrible and painful deaths in the Arizona desert. Smuggling is accompanied by a huge increase in violent crimes, including murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping.

Yet, only 140 new federal agents were assigned to the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona this year. That's a pitiful response compared to the tens of thousands who invade our territory every year.

Congress and the Administration are toying with plans to use state-of-the-art technology to monitor the activities of law-abiding Americans, and are now using camera-equipped, unmanned spy planes in Afghanistan to hunt for terrorists. When are we going to use advanced technology on our border, including surveillance planes, electric fences, and, yes, U.S. troops to protect the states against "invasion" as required by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution?

The leader of a ring that smuggled about 900 illegal aliens during the 1990s was convicted in April after two of his passengers died in a sweltering tractor-trailer near Dallas. Each week, the smuggler would bring up to five loads of aliens to safe houses in El Paso where they would be picked up to be hauled to eager U.S. employers nationwide.

A Florida farm labor contractor was sentenced in April for luring illegal aliens into a smuggling operation that left 14 dead and 11 others to suffer in the Arizona desert after they were abandoned by their smugglers, called coyotes. Last year, 94 people were prosecuted in Colorado for smuggling illegal aliens.

A Tijuana restaurant owner pled guilty to running a smuggling ring that brought illegal aliens, mostly from Lebanon, through Mexico into San Diego. People-smugglers are bringing people from Pakistan and the Middle East into the United States for as much as $30,000 a person.

The leader of a ring that smuggled over a thousand Ukrainians into the United States through Mexico was sentenced in March to 17 years in prison. The smuggling operation began in Kiev, Ukraine, where people (referred to as "merchandise") paid fees of $5,000 to $7,000 each, were provided with Mexican tourist visas, coached to say "United States citizen" without a Russian accent, flown to Mexico and escorted to Los Angeles.

Accidents are a common occurrence, even on highways far from the border, when vans carrying illegal aliens crash because of high speeds, incompetent drivers going the wrong way, or inability to read English signs. The injured have to be cared for in local hospitals at U.S. taxpayers' expense.

In San Diego in December, 6 illegals were killed and 16 injured in a wrong-way lights-off head-on crash on the interstate, and two were killed and 20 injured in another crash in March. In Bowie, Kansas, in February, a van rolled over killing 3 and hospitalizing 15.

Near Fort Smith, Arkansas in March, 5 aliens were hospitalized after a head-on crash. A tractor-trailer driven by an illegal alien jackknifed and crashed in the new Boston Big Dig tunnel in May, and the cost to the taxpayers will be $500,000.

In populated areas of California and Arizona, the illegal traffic often moves through tunnels, of which U.S. officials say there may be "at least 100, if not several hundreds." A truck will park over the U.S. end of the tunnel, and bundles of drugs are handed up through a hole in the trailer's floor.

On April 4 in a parking lot near San Diego, U.S. authorities found a sophisticated tunnel with electricity, ventilation and a million-dollar pulley system. It was the fifth secret passageway discovered along that county's border in the past 14 months.

The federal government has appropriated $695,000 to clean up the trash and waste in southeast Arizona to cope with the environmental damage caused by this human traffic. Arizonans say they need $62.9 million and 93 more employees to repair the damage and to protect against the threat of wildfires from mountains of trash.

We certainly can't depend on Mexico to stop this invasion of illegals. U.S. authorities estimate that smugglers will pay $500 million this year in bribes and payoffs to Mexican military and police to protect this illicit traffic.

Alien Criminals in our Midst
How many policemen will die because of our government's failure to stop illegal entry into the United States? One of the worst aspects of our government's open borders policy is the repeated re-entry of alien criminals who were previously deported but easily return to commit more crimes.

In May, an illegal alien criminal and documented gang member, with four previous felony convictions and who had been deported several times, sneaked back into the United States and committed a cold-blooded crime. When Oceanside (Calif.) police officer Tony Zeppetella stopped Adrian Camacho for a traffic violation, the alien pulled out a gun and killed the policeman with three shots.

Saul Morales-Garcia alias Javier Duarte Chavez shot Las Vegas police officer Enrique Hernandez six times in December. The alien had previously been deported, but he illegally re-entered the United States.

Zeppetella had served six years in the Navy and Hernandez eight years in the Marines. Both had a wife and infant child, and friends of both officers said their childhood ambition was to be a policeman.

In June, Enrique Sosa Alvarez was arrested in San Jose and charged with dragging a nine-year-old girl from her home and raping her repeatedly for three days before releasing her. A fingerprint check identified him as David Montiel Cruz who had previously been convicted of auto theft.

Police don't know for sure who he is, but we do know for sure he should have been deported after his earlier crime. The ease with which criminals change their names and come back across the border shows the folly of accepting Mexico's matricula consular as a valid I.D.

Illegal alien Walter Alexander Sorto was repeatedly picked up for driver's license violations and for not having insurance, but Houston police were barred from reporting his illegal status to federal authorities. In March he and a companion abducted, raped and killed three Houston women.

Maximiliano Esparza, who raped and killed a Bellevue, Washington, nun last year, had earlier been in a California prison and the court had ordered him deported. But our government didn't deport him; it merely asked him to sign an I-210, a simple promise to depart, widely known as a "catch-and-release" document.

Before the 9/11 attack, ringleader Mohamed Atta was ticketed in Florida for driving without a license, and his accomplice Ziad Samir Jarrah was ticketed for speeding in Maryland, and both were on expired visas. Chalk that up to missed opportunities to prevent 9/11.

Currently under a final order of deportation are 314,000 absconders, illegal aliens whom our government can't deport because we can't find them, including 4,800 from nations where Al Qaeda terrorists are active. Only a fraction of them have been entered on the National Crime Information Center database, the Department of Justice's listing of outstanding warrants and fugitives.

Only the brutal gang rape of a Queens, New York, woman in December by four illegal aliens has produced a governmental response. Three of those four criminals already had long rap sheets from previous arrests and should have been deported.

The House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration was spurred to hold a hearing in February to question New York and Houston officials about their so-called "sanctuary" ordinances that deter or even prohibit local police from reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities. New York was under such an executive order issued in 1989 by then-Mayor Edward Koch.

On May 30, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Executive Order 34 permitting city employees to ask people seeking government services about their immigration status if that is relevant to their eligibility. Bloomberg said his order was necessary to put the city into compliance with federal law, and even Koch came out in support of the Bloomberg order. Bloomberg's order, however, has limitations. He said in a written statement that he will never let police or city agencies become an arm of the INS "under my administration."

But why not? State and local police, of whom we have at least 670,000, are our first line of defense against criminals (not the minuscule 2,000 federal investigators assigned to immigration enforcement). But local police are being shackled by city officials.

Twenty cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Seattle and Portland, Maine, have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning police from asking people about their immigration status unless they are suspected of committing a felony, are a threat to national security, or have been previously deported. But how are the police going to know if they have previously been deported unless they first ascertain who they are?

What happens when alien criminals complete their prison terms? The Justice Department's inspector general admitted that our government released 35,318 criminal aliens into the general population in 2000, and nobody knows how many then committed other serious crimes.

The famous case of the sniper who terrorized the Washington, D.C. area for weeks last year is a good example both of the importance of the role of the local police and of the irresponsible way that federal immigration authorities release aliens instead of deporting them. Lee Malvo was picked up and fingerprinted the previous year by a Bellingham, Washington, police detective and west coast Border Patrol agent. They turned Malvo over to federal immigration officials, who had the duty under our laws to deport him immediately because he came to the United States as a Jamaican stowaway on a ship that docked in Miami. But Seattle district immigration officials released Malvo, who subsequently went across the country on a killing spree with John Muhammad, who was financed by the $60,000 he made selling forged U.S. driver's licenses and birth certificates.

In fairness to our local police, they repeatedly complain that they get no cooperation from federal immigration officials when reporting illegal aliens -- unless a major felony is involved. Attorney General John Ashcroft should make sure that all police know about his October 8 speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police wherein he promised that federal agents will respond when local officers notify them of immigration violators.

If the United States can wage a preemptive war against Iraq, local police should be allowed to preempt vicious crimes by checking the citizenship status of persons arrested for minor as well as major crimes, and then reporting illegals to federal authorities. All sanctuary ordinances should be rescinded.

Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?
The hottest controversy in state legislatures regards allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. Americans were shocked to discover that most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 carried driver's licenses from Virginia, Florida or New Jersey.

A driver's license is the pass to board a plane as well as the license to drive car. It confers a sort of quasi-citizenship and, as described by one illegal alien in Texas, "The driver's license ends up becoming our pass to be in this country." Yet, 20 states do not require applicants to prove they are legally in the United States.

Since 9/11, 21 states have enacted new legislation to make it harder to get driver's licenses, and legislation has been introduced in another 22 states. Peter Gadiel, whose 23-year-old son James died in the World Trade Center attack, traveled from Connecticut to Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee to support beefed-up identification laws. A Tennessee legislative committee heard testimony about the need to tighten driver's license rules from April Gallop, a survivor of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Even in Idaho, State Senator Cecil Ingram told a public hearing, "This has turned out to be a bigger problem than I thought."

The states embarrassed by the 9/11 hijackers have gotten the message. Virginia passed a bill to stop issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and Florida and New Jersey passed legislation to coordinate driver's licenses with immigration visas. New Jersey, where driver's licenses have been made of paper and do not require a photo, has long been the target of document fraud and counterfeiters. The state is now converting to state-of-the-art digitized driver's licenses with a dozen covert and overt security features, including a mandatory photo, bar code, hologram, and digital signature.

Arizona and Mississippi also killed bills to make it easier for illegal aliens to get a driver's license.

Tennessee, a state known to be casual about issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, considered but postponed action on requiring driver's license applicants to present a document showing they are legally in this country.

Minnesota is trying to address the controversy through rulemaking by the Department of Public Safety. The proposed rule would require visitors to present documents to prove they are in the country legally, and the license would expire when their visas expire.

Georgia would seem an unlikely state for immigration controversies, but an estimated 435,000 Hispanics live in Georgia, a 300% increase over 1990, according to the U.S. Census. A lively big group showed up at a hearing in Gainesville from the county of Hall, where at least 19% of the population is Hispanic and 85% of those are not citizens. For weeks, Georgia wrangled over a bill to allow driver's licenses to be obtained by illegal aliens who come from the "Free Trade Area of the Americas," i.e., from Canada, Latin America, and some Caribbean islands. The bill was finally defeated in April.

Among those who spoke against the proposed legislation was retired Col. A.R. "Mac" MacCahan (whose Army unit lost 206 of 212 men fighting in the Korean War). He asked, "What part of illegal don't you understand?" Others ask, why reward people who have committed at least three felonies: illegal entry into the U.S., purchasing fraudulent documents to get a job, and misrepresenting the legality of those documents at the workplace?

Kentucky was once one of the easiest states for illegal aliens to get a driver's license. That changed after a 1998 incident in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested a van load of illegals from Russia who had traveled from New York to Louisville to get driver's licenses. After that, Kentucky reinstituted a policy of requiring that noncitizens applying for licenses take a written test. County Circuit Clerk Tony Miller said, "We try to be helpful. We offer that test in 21 languages." But Miller didn't explain how it promotes safety to license drivers who can't read the road signs.

INS public affairs officer Garrison Courtney identified one of the biggest problems: "If they were illegal when they came here, it's very difficult to determine who they really are because they've created illegal I.D.s for themselves." The Seattle Times reported that one U.S. Department of Justice raid discovered piles of cash totaling $95,262 plus $10,000 worth of computer equipment and specialty papers that had been used to print 800 fake driver's licenses, green cards, work permits, Mexican birth certificates, and Social Security cards.

Many are concerned about the danger from issuing licenses to terrorists who might use trucks loaded with gasoline or other hazardous materials in the same way that hijackers used commercial airliners on 9/11. The U.S. Transportation Department reported last year that we lack sufficient safeguards, particularly from the many states that do not require applicants to prove they are legally in the country.

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.