Dubious bills won't help immigration reform
We regret the PG failed to consider the discriminatory effects of House Bills 1502 and 1503, which would require contractors and subcontractors to verify employees' immigration status ("Forget Arizona," June 10 editorial). Instead of dismissing the American Civil Liberties Union's concerns, the PG should consider identical concerns raised by U.S. government studies, chambers of commerce and religious groups.
The federal employment verification database, E-Verify, is a work in progress. Recent federal government studies have found error rates unacceptably high. The database fails to identify people with forged or stolen Social Security numbers, and more important, it incorrectly rejects people legally authorized to work.
Other studies have concluded that in the past, similar laws led employers to discriminate, especially against Hispanic workers. For these reasons, Congress has refused to make E-Verify mandatory until the accuracy is improved and sufficient anti-discrimination protections are adopted.
The "facts" about the effects of undocumented labor in Pennsylvania, relied upon by the bills' sponsor and the PG, come from a known anti-immigration group whose statistics have been widely criticized. They inflate the effects of undocumented immigrants and the likely success of proposed legislative fixes while ignoring contrary data and evidence of discriminatory impacts.
Furthermore, the constitutionality of the bills is questionable. Two federal courts have issued injunctions against similar laws, including one involving Hazleton, Pa. And just two weeks ago the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in the Supreme Court asserting that Arizona's E-Verify law is unconstitutional.
Any discussion of immigration reform must be fact-based and sensitive to discrimination against lawful residents. The PG can do better than it did in supporting these dangerous bills of dubious constitutionality.
WITOLD J. WALCZAK
Legal Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania
Oakland
The federal employment verification database, E-Verify, is a work in progress. Recent federal government studies have found error rates unacceptably high. The database fails to identify people with forged or stolen Social Security numbers, and more important, it incorrectly rejects people legally authorized to work.
Other studies have concluded that in the past, similar laws led employers to discriminate, especially against Hispanic workers. For these reasons, Congress has refused to make E-Verify mandatory until the accuracy is improved and sufficient anti-discrimination protections are adopted.
The "facts" about the effects of undocumented labor in Pennsylvania, relied upon by the bills' sponsor and the PG, come from a known anti-immigration group whose statistics have been widely criticized. They inflate the effects of undocumented immigrants and the likely success of proposed legislative fixes while ignoring contrary data and evidence of discriminatory impacts.
Furthermore, the constitutionality of the bills is questionable. Two federal courts have issued injunctions against similar laws, including one involving Hazleton, Pa. And just two weeks ago the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in the Supreme Court asserting that Arizona's E-Verify law is unconstitutional.
Any discussion of immigration reform must be fact-based and sensitive to discrimination against lawful residents. The PG can do better than it did in supporting these dangerous bills of dubious constitutionality.
WITOLD J. WALCZAK
Legal Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania
Oakland