Is a Biometric Identity Card the Key to Immigration Reform?

Could a national identity card help resolve the heated immigration-reform divide?

Two Senators, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, certainly seem to think so. They recently presented an immigration-bill blueprint to President Barack Obama that includes a proposal to issue a biometric ID card - one that would contain physical data such as fingerprints or retinal scans - to all working Americans. The "enhanced Social Security card" is being touted as a way to curb illegal immigration by giving employers the power to quickly and accurately determine who is eligible to work. "If you say [illegal immigrants] can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it," Schumer told the Wall Street Journal. Proponents also hope legal hiring will be easier for employers if there's a single go-to document instead of the 26 that new employees can currently use to show they're authorized to work.
But with a congressional skirmish over comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, skeptics from the left and the right have raised numerous concerns about the biometric ID - some of which pop up every time a form of national identification is proposed, and some that hinge on the shape this plan ultimately takes.
The sheer scale of the project is a potential problem, in terms of time, money and technology. The premise of using a biometric employment card (which would most likely contain fingerprint data) to stop illegal immigrants from working requires that all 150 million–plus American workers, not just immigrants, have one. Michael Cherry, president of identification-technology company Cherry Biometrics, says the accuracy of such large-scale biometric measuring hasn't been proved. "What study have we done?" he says. "We just have a few assumptions."
Schumer estimates that employers would have to pay up to $800 for card-reading machines, and many point out that compliance could prove burdensome for many small-to-medium-size businesses. In a similar program run by the Department of Homeland Security, in which 1.4 million transportation workers have been issued biometric credentials, applicants each pay $132.50 to help cover the costs of the initiative, which so far run in the hundreds of millions. "This is sort of like the worst combination of the DMV and the TSA," says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU, an organization that has traditionally opposed all forms of national ID. "It's going to be enormously costly no matter what."
Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, says the pace of expanding the program is crucial. He believes that issuing the cards on a rolling basis and viewing them as "the next version of the driver's license" makes the idea of a nationally issued biometric ID seem much less daunting. "I think that there is a risk in overreaching too quickly," he says.
Another potential issue is whether the card will result in people being wrongfully denied work. The average person isn't equipped to determine whether two fingerprints are a match - even FBI fingerprint experts have their off days, as when they incorrectly implicated a Portland, Ore., attorney in the 2004 bombings in Madrid - which means employers would be relying on an automated system. And that, as well as the fingerprinting process itself, invariably leads to some small number of mistakes.
In testimony given at a Senate immigration hearing in July 2009, Illinois Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, who has led the drive for immigration reform in the House, pointed out that an error rate of just 1% would mean that more than 1.5 million people - roughly the population of Philadelphia - would be wrongly deemed ineligible for work. "This is no small number," he said, "especially in this economy, where so many workers already face extraordinary obstacles to finding a job." Dean Pradeep Khosla, founding director of Carnegie Mellon's cybersecurity lab, estimates that the error rates of computerized systems would likely be less than 2% (and could be less than 1%) but says they can never be zero. Civil-liberties advocates, citing the secret post-9/11 no-fly lists that innocents couldn't get their names removed from, worry about whether those mistakenly put on the no-job list will ever be given the chance to correct the information.
Many skeptics also worry about false positives that come not from the computer but from counterfeits or employers looking to bypass the system. "It's naive to think that this document won't be faked," Calabrese says. "Folks are already paying $10,000 to sneak into the country. What's a couple thousand more?" In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Schumer and Graham said the card would be "fraud-proof" and that employers would face "stiff fines" and possibly imprisonment if they tried to get around using it. But Cherry half-jokes that someone could falsify such an ID in 15 minutes, and Khosla says that while current technology makes fingerprints the most feasible biometric marker to use, they're also one of the easiest to steal.
Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, believes that keeping biometric information out of a centralized database is "the biggest challenge." Otherwise, she says, the prospect of having millions of fingerprints on hand would be too tempting for the government not to abuse. In their op-ed, the Senators said the information would be stored only on the card.
Although the card is being presented as existing solely for determining employment eligibility, "it will be almost impossible to say that this wealth of information is there, but you can only use it for this purpose," Coney says. "Privacy is pretty much hinged on the notion that if you collect data for one purpose, you can't use it for another." Calabrese expresses worries that this ID will become a "central identity document" that one will need in order to travel, vote or perhaps own a gun, which Melmed calls "mission creep."
Some dismiss privacy concerns as reflections of general government mistrust rather than legitimate technology issues. But Melmed believes that the practical issues will have to be addressed before the "social-acceptance debate" over biometric cards can even begin, and both rely on many details that the Senators have yet to present. "People are waiting to see something in writing," Calabrese says. "But the idea doesn't fill people with a warm, fuzzy feeling."

Graham tells Politico "President Must Step it UP"

President Barack Obama is summoning two key senators to the Oval Office on Thursday for an update on immigration reform efforts — but one of them, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), thinks Obama should be the one giving the update.
Graham, less than thrilled at the notion of providing the equivalent of a book report to the headmaster in chief, said Obama’s lack of direction on immigration reform is hampering Graham’s efforts to recruit additional Republicans to the cause.
“At the end of the day, the president needs to step it up a little bit,” Graham told POLITICO on Tuesday. “One line in the State of the Union is not going to do it.”
For the past six months, Graham and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who meet with Obama at 3 p.m. Thursday — have worked on a reform framework. Their plan, which hasn’t been introduced yet, includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (a liberal must-have) while sweetening the pot for moderates by proposing tough new safeguards, including a biometric national ID card for workers.
To the frustration of many reform advocates, Obama has kept his opinions of the possible deal vague, giving a head nod to reform in his State of the Union speech but not much more.
Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro offered no response to Graham’s challenge but reiterated the administration’s intention to allow Congress to hash things out before Obama weighs in, an approach reminiscent of his health reform strategy.
“The president’s commitment to fixing our broken system remains unwavering,” Shapiro said. “Earlier, the president told members of both parties that if they can fashion a plan to deal with these problems, he is eager to work with them to get it done, and he has assigned [Homeland Security] Secretary [Janet] Napolitano to work with stakeholders on that effort.”
Shapiro went on to reiterate Obama’s core principles — not prescriptions — including resolving “the status of 12 million people who are here illegally.” He punted when asked about the controversial ID system, which has the backing of some immigrant groups while sparking fierce opposition from civil libertarians.
“There are a number of options on the table, but we are clear that we need to build on and improve the existing verification system if we are going to get control of the job market for undocumented workers,” he said.
Napolitano, who has held dozens of meetings on the topic with House members and senators, was supposed to attend a previously scheduled Graham-Schumer meeting Monday, which had to be postponed when Graham’s flight from South Carolina was delayed. She’ll be overseas during Thursday’s meeting, an administration official said.
Graham said he wants a greater sense of direction to break the cycle of distrust that doomed comprehensive immigration reform during the Bush administration, despite the support of a Republican president and major party figures like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
“I think moderate Democrats have to come on board before you get Republicans, and Republicans have to come on board before you get Democrats,” said Graham.
At the moment, only a few brave congressional souls have walked the reform gangplank. With health care blanketing the capital like a horror-movie fog, and jobs, climate change and budget bills next in line for consideration, the chances of passing a politically risky immigration reform bill are somewhere between nil and exceptionally remote.
The hope, instead, is to build a consensus around a measure that could pass sometime in the not too distant, non-election-year future. While many Democrats publicly embrace comprehensive reform, most are privately rooting for inertia rather than tying themselves to any proposal that could be used against them in the midterms.
The tough part for Obama, however, is that the Obama-Graham-Schumer summit is also being closely watched by Hispanic groups, who are demanding proof of action as a reward for their overwhelming support of Obama in 2008.
With a massive March 21 pro-immigration reform rally planned for Washington, and Latinos the fastest-growing segment of the electorate, Obama can ill afford to alienate them.
“For the Latino community in this country, it’s the civil rights issue of their time, so delay obviously adds to disillusionment,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban-American who has urged the administration to move more quickly.
Immigration reform, he added, “would seal the community’s commitment to the Democratic Party.”
That opinion is shared by a collection of Hispanic groups, who have pressured the White House in forceful terms, threatening to withdraw support if Obama doesn’t follow through on his commitment.
But the appetite for a huge new push in immigration is as weak as it has been in years, with moderates like Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee — saying it’s not even on her radar.
“I’m not even thinking about it,” she said.
And Graham’s friend McCain, now facing a tough primary challenge from anti-immigration-reform conservative J.D. Hayworth, said he hasn’t even spoken with Graham about supporting the latest proposal.
And he offered low marks for Obama’s immigration reform efforts since taking office: “I don’t know what he’s done, so I don’t know how to comment on his performance,” McCain said of his 2008 opponent, adding that any attempt at reform would be “very, very difficult in this environment."

Illegal Immigrants Caught Sabotaging American Train Tracks

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is requesting that Federal authorities charge the illegal aliens caught stealing over 500 railroad spikes in North Carolina with terrorism charges, since they entered America illegally and worked to sabotage train tracks in a way that could have resulted in mass casualties.
"We are at war with terrorists and stealing train spikes, which is likely to cause a train to derail is an act of terrorism," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The Obama administration must admit that their failure to adequately enforce our border and immigration laws is putting American lives at risk of terrorism."
The Asheville Citizen Times reported on March 2, 2010 that police had arrested TWO ILLEGAL ALIENS, Cruz Mario Carnacion, 37 and Jose Luis Trejo-Yanez for being in possession of more than 500 STOLEN 7-inch spike's that were taken from the railroad tracks owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad.
This latest incident is similar to arrests of illegal aliens stealing railroad tracks and spikes from railroads near Yuma, AZ, which was reported by US Customs and Border Patrol on March 11, 2008.
"We believe that this documented pattern of illegal immigrants stealing railroad parts from tracks and putting American lives at risk is a form of terrorism that will likely not be reported by the national media,"said William Gheen. "America are under attack in our own nation and many times illegal aliens are engaging in domestic terrorism against our citizens and nation."
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is warning Americans of these illegal alien terrorism attempts through an massive online network of supporters and blogger. Activists across the nation are being encouraged to contact their local talk radio shows and elected officials to share this information about the illegal aliens stealing railroad spikes. Activists are also being asked to call their members of Congress and Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security to ask her to focus on enforcing our existing immigration laws, instead of focusing on trying to pass the current AMNESTY legislation active in Congress.

Napolitano Says People From Countries Tied to Terrorism Could ‘Potentially’ Enter USA, But DHS Reports Says Thousands Already Have

Courtesy of CNSNEWS.com
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told senators it is a national security concern that people from countries with ties to terrorism could 'potentially' gain entry into the United States by crossing the country’s southern border.

But according to the Department of Homeland Security’s own reports, thousands of people from 14 “special interest” countries already have come into the United States illegally, including some across the U.S.-Mexico border. (The State Department designates some nations as "special interest" counties because of their links to terrorism.)
Napolitano testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday. Her remarks on “special interest” persons came after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked her about the ongoing violence in Mexico and the possibility of that violence spilling over into the United States.
“So, if the drug cartels succeeded, then it would be a matter of time before the violence would spill over onto our side of the border,” McCain said. “Not to mention the free, basically free, access they would have to bring drugs, as well as humans, into our country.”
“We haven’t seen spillover violence in that sense yet,” Napolitano said. “It is a risk. The ability to traffic in drugs cause their own damage to lives in the United States.
“Our ability to curtail that would be affected,” she said. “On the human trafficking side, it’s not solely illegal immigrants coming to work, but the ability of people from countries of special interest to immigrate into Central America and be ferried up to the border and over into the United States is also a concern.”
McCain responded: “Countries of special interest – people could come up through our southern border?”
“Potentially, yes,” Napolitano said.
The State Department lists four special interest countries as sponsors of terror – Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran. The other 10 countries of interest are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.
A prototype of a tower for a virtual fence along the U.S.-Mexico border at a test facility in Playas, N.M. According to the DHS’s 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Studies, from the Office of Immigration Statistics, a total of 791,568 people where detained by federal law enforcement agencies in fiscal year 2008 – 5,506 of those people were from those 14 “special interest” countries.
The report states that those individuals were detained “at the borders of the United States, in the interior of the country and at designated sites outside of the United States.” It does not disclose those details for each individual, however.
The specific numbers of individuals by country are labeled in the yearbook at the chapter, “Deportable Aliens Located by Region and Country of Nationality: Fiscal Year 2008.”

Afghanistan – 29
Algeria – 41             
Cuba – 3,896
Iran – 98
Iraq – 118
Lebanon – 188
Liberia – 98
Libya – 11
Nigeria – 299
Pakistan – 494
Saudi Arabia – 71
Somalia – 66
Sudan – 46
Syria – 71
Yemen -- 78
In accordance with federal law, any individual arrested by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) are then turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is responsible for detention and deportation.
Aside from the number of individuals and their country of origin, the DHS does not release any further information about the individuals, including whether they were found to have links with terrorist groups. CNSNews.com is seeking further information about illegal aliens in U.S. custody from 2007 to 2009 from the 14 countries of special interest, through the Freedom of Information Act.
According to an August 2009 report on checkpoints and border security by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 530 illegal aliens from countries of special interest were “encountered” at CBP checkpoints in fiscal year 2008.

The report states:
“Checkpoints also help screen for individuals who may have ties to terrorism. CBP reported that in fiscal year 2008, there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at southwest border checkpoints who were identified as persons linked to terrorism.
“In addition, the Border Patrol reported that in fiscal year 2008 checkpoints
encountered 530 aliens from special interest countries, which are countries the Department of State has determined to represent a potential terrorist threat to the United States.
“While people from these countries may not have any ties to illegal or terrorist activities, Border Patrol agents detain aliens from special interest countries if they are in the United States illegally and Border Patrol agents report these encounters to the local
Sector Intelligence Agent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Force, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations, and the CBP National Targeting Center.
“For example, according to a Border Patrol official in the El Paso sector, a checkpoint stopped a vehicle and questioned its three Iranian occupants, determining that one of those occupants was in the United States illegally. The individual was detained and turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further questioning.”
As reported earlier by CNSNews.com, the federal government, including DHS, have extensive information about the drug and human trafficking over the U.S. border with Mexico.
The entire U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. While 697 of those miles are now under “effective control,” according to the Border Patrol, 1,257 miles are not under “effective control.”
Each year, the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) produces “drug market analyses” for each of 32 regions of the country that the NDIC describes as “high intensity drug trafficking areas.” Five of these areas sit along the U.S.-Mexico border. These include the California border region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and South Texas.
The latest reports, released in March and April of 2009, use candid language in portraying the U.S.-Mexican frontier as wide open to drug smuggling and even vulnerable to penetration by potential terrorists.
The California-Mexico border, the NDIC said, was “easily breached” on both foot and in vehicles.
“The vast border area presents innumerable remote crossing points that traffickers exploit to smuggle illicit drugs, primarily marijuana, into the country from Mexico,” said the NDIC. “These areas are easily breached by traffickers on foot, in private vehicles, or in all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as they smuggle drugs between POEs [ports of entry], particularly the mountainous areas in eastern San Diego County and the desert and sand dune areas in Imperial County.”
Arizona’s border was judged to be open not only to drug smugglers but also aliens with “extensive criminal records” and from “special interest countries,” which are defined as “countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism.”
“Some criminal organizations smuggle aliens and gang members into the United States,” said NDIC’s report on Arizona. “These particular individuals typically have extensive criminal records and pose a threat, not only to the Arizona HIDTA [High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area] region but also to communities throughout the United States. Alien smuggling organizations reportedly also smuggle aliens from countries other than Mexico, including special-interest countries.”
“Special-interest countries are those designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism,” said the NDIC report.

This Week In Immigration News Feb. 26,2010

 The Washington Independant -

To reduce the state debt in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) wants to make a drastic cut in public assistance for legal immigrants. The cut would mostly affect new immigrants, who are not yet eligible for welfare, by eliminating access to essential medical care and basic food and cash assistance. Thirty-seven thousand people will lose aid from the California Food Assistance Program; 24,000 people will lose assistance provided by CalWORKs, which provides families with cash, childcare and job-training; and 48,570 legal immigrants will lose their access to heathcare (through Medi-Cal).

Undocumented immigrants are being left out of the healthcare debate, but a new study shows that even legal immigrants — those who are eligible for government healthcare programs — face challenges that prevent them from receiving adequate care. The study, sponsored by New Yorkers For Accessible Health Coverage and the New York Immigration Coalition, shows that many immigrants are misinformed about two major issues: by receiving public health insurance benefits, they may be considered a “public charge” (which would disqualify them from adjusting their status to lawful permanent resident); and that enrolling in public insurance would affect their ability to sponsor relatives for admission to the United States. Still, others aren’t enrolled because cultural and linguistic barriers prevent them from understanding or applying to be part of the insurance system.


The Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system, which serves to check a potential employee’s eligibility to work in the U.S., works less than half the time to accurately flag unauthorized workers, according to a research report by Westat, a research company based in Maryland under contract to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. E-Verify inaccurately reads unauthorized workers as authorized 54 percent of the time, according to the study. The system is voluntarily used by more than 180,000 employers currently at more than 675,000 work sites and applies only to new hires. “This is a wake-up call to anyone who thinks E-Verify is an effective remedy to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is writing an immigration bill.

Senate Republicans have raised concerns about the jobs bill because it does not require that an employee be a legal resident or citizen, nor does it require use of the E-Verify system. GOP members say the bill does not prevent businesses from trying to gain tax credits by hiring illegal immigrants. Read more about E-Verify, and why the GOP fears undocumented workers, here.

The Economic Policy Institute released a report showing that immigrants who are U.S. citizens are more likely to receive higher wages and experience lower levels of poverty than non-citizens. Surprisingly, the study also found that in 2007, adult U.S. citizen immigrants had a median family income of $57,823, higher than the median family income of native-born citizens ($56,000.) Non-citizen immigrants’ median family income was $38,600. The report suggested that this may be attributed to assimilation and the likelihood of naturalized citizens having attained higher levels of education than non-citizens.

 The Dept. of Homeland Security reports that the illegal population fell significantly between 2008 and 2009, by almost 1 million people (experts agree the main causes are a weak economy and tougher immigration enforcement.) But opinion differs on what those numbers actually mean. Most immigration experts agree that the number of new illegal immigrants entering the country has declined, but some disagree over whether the number of immigrants leaving has increased.

A new report by the anti-immigration think-tank, Center for Immigration Studies, tells Republican leaders to give up on the Latino vote. The center suggests that only after reducing Hispanic immigration into the country can that voting block begin assimilating and becoming Republican. The Immigration Impact writes in an article, “In other words, the CIS report offers not only a grim view of Republican political prospects, but a stereotypical and insulting portrayal of Latino voters who are perceived as too poor and ignorant to vote Republican, and who should therefore be ignored by Republican political strategists until they grow out of their Democratic phase….Apparently, an immigrant has not really become fully part of American society until he or she fervently supports a Republican Party that officially looks down upon immigrants.”

Canada - Stronger federal action urged on illegal immigration

ELGIN -- Elgin Police Chief Lisa Womack urged federal lawmakers Thursday to take action soon on addressing illegal immigration, citing a failure to do so for what has become the public's "misunderstanding" of local law enforcement's role.

Speaking during a teleconference as part of a four-person panel of former and current local law enforcement officials, Womack described Elgin's issues concerning illegal immigration as "very similar" to those found in border states. She said it stemmed from the federal government's inability thus far to come up with a comprehensive plan for immigration reform.
"There's a clear misunderstanding on the local level from my community as to what the local role is in enforcement of immigration laws," Womack said. "In my community, a portion of them believe 'illegal is illegal' and that police need to deal with it, and if the federal government won't, then the local police should."
"We all know that is absolutely not an accurate statement," she continued. "Immigration law and immigration enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency matter."
Also featured at the forum -- hosted by the California-based Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative -- were El Paso County, Texas, Sheriff Richard Wiles; Yakima, Wash., Police Chief Sam Granato; and former Sacramento, Calif., police chief and current LEEI Project Director Arturo Venegas.
Venegas said immigration law enforcement has burdened local police departments over the last several years at a time when many are struggling with limited resources.
"We do not ask the federal government to handle the calls for service in our local community," he said. "And we for sure as heck do not have the resources to handle, in essence, the federal responsibility in immigration."
Womack said only people arrested for criminal acts have had their residency status checked, and that anything more would only help to stoke an air of distrust between officers and some within the communities they are trying to police.
"We want to have a safe and secure community," she said. "Those that are here in our community violating the laws regardless of their residency status is what we focus on -- that is the line that we draw in order that we can maintain that trust with our community so that we can have criminal activity being appropriately reported."