Numbers USA’s different analysis of the SAVE Act. HR 4088 ..
Quote: “With all due respect to Mr. DeWeese and the “American Policy Center,” our legislative team is the number-one immigration legislation team in Washington, D.C., and they spent weeks going over this bill and working with Congressional offices. Their analysis and NumbersUSA’s endorsement of the SAVE Act can be found here:http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html
I asked them to look over Mr. DeWeese’s analysis here are a few responses:1) To the question of the SAVE Act not providing funding: The SAVE Act is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill.
2) To the question of the SAVE Act authorizing ONLY additional fencing: The fencing included in the SAVE Act is in addition to the fencing authorized in The Secure Fence Act. It does not change anything about The Secure Fence Act.
3) To the question of the SAVE Act replacing fencing with “vehicle barriers”: Again, the vehicle barriers would be in addition to the fencing provided by The Secure Fence Act.
The bill actually says, “vehicle barriers, to support, not replace, manpower, in rural and remote areas of the border necessary to achieve operational control of the international borders of the United States.”
4) To the question of DHS contracting with foreign countries: Mr. DeWeese, again, misreads the bill. Section 112, subsections (b) and (c) would, for the first time ever, require DHS Secretary to report to Congress IF DHS intends to contract with a foreign
company. The obvious point is to require notification of Congress, not to encourage such contracts.
5) To the question of the SAVE Act defending a religious denomination for breaking the law by smuggling or harboring illegals: The language that Mr. DeWeese quotes is NOT in the bill. There is no provision in the bill that even mentions ministers or ministries.
6) To the question of the SAVE Act compromising border security for environmental reasons: This is apparently a reference to Section 142(b), which requires, for the first time ever, Ag and Interior to actually work with DHS to develop a border security strategy that Ag and Interior will help implement on Ag and Interior land along the border. The very next section authorizes both Departments additional law enforcement officers to accomplish this new enforcement activity. The point is to, for the first time ever, provide additional resources in order to enforce immigration law in these protected areas. Another serious misreading.
7) To the question of creating new databases on American workers: Simply false. The Social Security database already exists. The SAVE Act creates no new databases and workers will not be required to provide any new information. The only thing that the SAVE Act changes is that the government must tell the businesses when the data they’ve sent on a new hire indicate the person may be an illegal alien. If the questioned new hires turn out to be Americans or legal foreign workers, there is an easy process to make that clear. But if they are illegal aliens, they will lose their jobs.
To the question of the SAVE Act not including any penalties or fines for employers: Penalties and fines for employers who hire illegal aliens already exist. The SAVE Act doesn’t change current law.
Despite their best intentions, the American Policy Center’s analysis of the SAVE Act is beyond questionable. Some of the quotes included in their alert appear to be completely fabricated, while other quotes are taken out of context and turned on their head. Our legislative team is wondering whether APC confused the SAVE Act with some other bill (there is an amnesty bill sponsored by Rep. Jackson-Lee with a similar name).
Unfortunately, this kind of thing can cause quite a bit of damage and seriously undermine our efforts. NumbersUSA is reaching out to the American Policy Center to see if we can help them with their analysis. ” (From NumbersUSA)
