Iowa House of Reps hammers illegal immigrants
The Iowa House of Representatives passed last week a bill to hammer illegal immigrants by requiring employers to check their employees, employees to carry driver’s licenses or other state-issued identification, and for bail to be denied for illegal aliens who are arrested. Local police must notify ICE. The House majority leader called the bill a symbolic statement. Ah?
The article in full:
By CHARLOTTE EBY, Courier Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES --- Trying to deal with an influx of illegal immigrants, the Iowa House moved forward Wednesday with a measure meant to reduce the employment of undocumented workers.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said Democrats wanted to send a message to the federal government and try to deal with a problem Iowans have been concerned about.
"The symbolic statement is a plea to the federal government to start enforcing the law and have a comprehensive, logical immigration policy," McCarthy said.
The measure, which cleared the House on an 84-16 vote, requires employers to check driver's licenses or other state-issued photo identification from Iowa or the surrounding states and verify it within 10 business days of a hire. Employers or their designee must sign a form under penalty of perjury confirming they have examined the ID and "facially validated" the employee.
The measure also would mean aliens who are arrested would be denied bail, and local law enforcement agencies would be required to notify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The measure seeks to stop employers from paying employees cash or misclassifying them as independent contractors. Backers say the practice has been used in the construction industry and means employees can't get unemployment or workers' compensation benefits.
Employers who misclassify employees could face misdemeanor criminal penalties.
Failure to follow the law could result in civil penalties, and those who make false statements or conceal material facts could be charged with a Class D felony and face a possible five-year prison term.
Reps. Elesha Gayman, D-Davenport, and Phil Wise, D-Keokuk, offered an amendment accepted by the House that would make it an aggravated misdemeanor for anyone to make or obtain identification cards that would assist an illegal alien in gaining employment.
Gayman said during the campaign voters asked what could be done about illegal immigration.
"Since our identification systems are run at a statewide level, I do believe that it is appropriate for our state to take action on this," Gayman said.
Rep. Jamie Van Fossen, R-Davenport, doubted the sincerity of the bill's sponsors, saying it would give lawmakers political cover. He voted for the bill, but argued the problem is with the federal government not enforcing the laws, not employers.
Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, voted against the bill. She pointed to what she called a humanitarian crisis and reminded fellow lawmakers of Iowa's tradition of lending a helping hand to immigrants.
"I wonder what I would do or any of us in this chamber would do if we were not able to feed our children. Would we break the law or would we allow our children to starve?" Wessel-Kroeschell said.
After approval in the House, the measure now moves to the Senate for consideration in the waning days of the session.
"We will take a look at what they've done," said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs.
Contact Charlotte Eby
at (515) 243-0138
Comments
I believe that by trying to reduce the number of illegal immigrants that work in Iowa is economic suicide. By doing this you are releasing the cheap labor and the hard workers that make big companies and especially agricultural industries so successful. You are not only hurting the Mexicans but you are hurting Americans because that is less money that the companies they own can earn. I agree with Ms.Wessel-Kroeschel that illegal immigrants will continue to do what they can to make money and that it is wrong not to lend a helping hand to those who are not as fortunate. For example, in 1910 when there was the Mexican revolution the U.S.’s borders were wide open to all the South Americans who wanted to come through. During the time of Mexican economic and political instability it is estimated that the U.S. allowed 459,000 Mexican immigrants to come through. (Out of Many). Many of those Mexicans went on to work in farms in California and the Southwest, while at the same time facing discriminatory laws around, housing, education, and employment. Is it not the same situation now? Mexico has a very corrupt government and the country is very poor due to NAFTA a policy that we made. In Mexico, though manufacturing jobs have increased, in rural Mexico poverty rates increased 64% alone in 1998 alone just four years after NAFTA was put into affect. (http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/3063.htm) So instead of trying to keep immigrant workers out why are we not providing them the legal opportunities to continue working in America and being productive members of the community? Especially in Iowa, a state whose industry is ruled by agriculture.
This applies directly to why President Bush was not able to come up with an immigration bill. There are two branches of Republican thought. The first branch is businesses, so that businesses can make as much money as possible, and the second part of Republican thought is keeping America, American. There is a conflict there in terms of immigration. Businesses know that without the employment of cheap labor that the illegal immigrant provide, hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost. Yet, the side of keeping America American wants illegal immigrants out because they “ are stealing jobs from hard working Americans”.
It is an American tradition to allow immigrants to come in and work hard to pull themselves up. We sell the American dream to everybody yet there are a rare few who can actually partake in trying to achieve that dream. "Give me your tired, your poor, /Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" (Lazarus). Is this just talk or do we actually try to back up what we say?
Posted by: Gabriel Faithfull | April 24, 2008 3:35 PM
Dear Blogger,
Although I see your point about enforcing employers to require identification and to abide by the new Real ID Acts, I think that a few things have been overlooked. The article you posted says that Kevin McCarthy was trying to send a message to the federal government, but I don’t agree that the message should include taking jobs away from illegal immigrants. Immigrants generally come to America to escape poverty or an unsatisfying lifestyle in their origin countries; they come to America to create a better life for themselves and often their entire family. By forcing employers to check their employee’s identifications for legitimacy is not really solving anything and I think is potentially creating even more issues. The first problem with this policy that I believe it overlooks the difficulty of receiving identification. The Real ID act suggests that a driver’s license is legitimate identification, however receiving a drivers license is hard to achieve for a citizen and is extremely difficult and time consuming for a struggling immigrant. A similar controversy is the photo identification requirement in order to vote. This requirement leaves out a portion of our country. Unless you are a student, have a job that provides you with identification, or have a driver’s license, the chances of having an ID is unlikely. This leaves out a portion of the poor community and of legal immigrants who are still struggling. Simply because these people don’t have identification doesn’t mean that their rights should be stripped from them. Although illegal immigrants are not citizens they still have human rights. By requiring ID we are stripping them of their jobs, and leaving them without a fighting chance to survive and support their family here in America. This issue can be related to the Immigration Act of 1917. This act banned all immigrants over the age of 16 that were unable to read the English language from immigrating to America. This act completely restricted immigrants from escaping their oppressive situations in their foreign country, and from moving on. The most controversial part of this act was that it didn’t allow room for growth or opportunity. Illegal immigrants that have jobs should not be further punished, at least they are here and are adding to our economy and trying to move forward and possibly become a citizen one day. If we continue to punish them for the sake of “sending a message” to the federal government that is a cruel and bad tactic. (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAE1917A.htm). In 1921 and 1924 the United States created quota acts and began to “shut the door”. Senator Ellison DuRant Smith gave a speech about the necessity to stop taking in more immigrants and work with what we have. Although I disagree with him, I think that the identification is doing the exact opposite of what he proposed. He spoke about working with all the people who were settled here in America and striving to create a better America. Illegal immigrants made the journey here and should be treated like people, not as a generalized group. We shouldn’t be taking jobs away from them and making it harder for them to survive, we should try to support them and work with them so that they can gain citizenship or at least legality. I understand that Mr. McCarthy is trying to draw attention to the illegal immigration policy, but I believe he’s going about it in a negative way. I think that we should focus on how to solve the existing problem, not make it worse, and not let it get further out of hand.
Posted by: Corinne Bennett | April 27, 2008 8:04 PM