New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bill | January 19, 2007 2:12 PM

Mayor,

How can you lend support to people who are here illegally? You are supposed to uphold the law not turn a blind eye. An ID card for legal immigrents sounds like a good idea but I stress legal!

This is the typical stuff you would expect from a liberal New Haven Mayor and why lost the election to Ms. Rell. Thank goodness you lost or you would have brought this kind to all of CT.

I was excited about New Haven and it's supposed rebirth but I'm sure it won't last with policies like this.

Posted by: Ralph Rechtenberg | January 20, 2007 12:44 PM

The Mayor and the Chief agree not to ask about immigration status, but will pass out immigrant IDs? So on the one hand, they disdain to act as aid to the enforcement of immigration laws, but proactively create in themselves immigration-like powers.

This plan, if enacted, should be challenged in the courts. Maybe we need to be in touch with national rights organizations who stand on the other side of this issue.

You will soon hear a great sucking sound, as this administration creates a muynicipal vacuum cleaner pulling in even more illegals who will come to know and love New Haven as a sanctuary.

Let the Mayor and the Chief strive to uphold the law; not to create, in their sole discretion, rules compelled by the pressure of a minority political group whose platform encourages illegal activity beneficial to no citizen.

Posted by: AS | January 20, 2007 1:12 PM

Local governments exist to provide the basics -- safety, public education and basic amenities, like clean streets and regular trash pick-ups. It's the responsibility of the federal government to enforce its laws and policies regarding foreign policy and immigration. So long as we as a country choose to have federal laws and policy regarding immigration that we refuse to enforce (largely because they are unenforceable) we cannot hoist that responsibility onto municipalities. In the meantime, municipalities cannot be expected to renege on their duties to ensure public safety and basic amenities in favor of some unenforceable federal immigration policy. By allowing undocumented immigrants to report crimes without fearing deportation and by giving them access to banks and credit unions (so that they're not walking cash-laden targets for criminals), a municipal ID helps New Haven ensure public safety for its residents. To me, that's New Haven and Mayor DeStefano doing their job and no less.

Posted by: Senior Citizen | January 21, 2007 10:01 AM

Through a Freedom of Information Act request a private group (TREA Senior Citizens League) recently obtained a copy of a September 2003 Congressional Report about Social Security agreement between the United States and Mexico.

The Report relates to a proposed Totalization Agreement with the United States and Mexico. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s by the Carter Administration mostly with 21 European nations to make sure American citizens living abroad do not suffer from double taxation with parallel Social Security programs.

Yes, totalization is the bureaucratic buzzword for the plan to put millions of illegal Mexican workers into the U.S. Social Security system. They would collect U.S. benefits based on their U.S earnings under false or stolen Social Security numbers plus alleged earnings in Mexico.

Current law does not prescribe how Social Security Administration (SSA) should select potential agreement countries. However, SSA officials noted that an increased business interaction between the United States and Mexico due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a factor in the recent negotiations with Mexico on the subject of totalization.

The U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement has become controversial because it could allow millions of illegal aliens from Mexico to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund, creating huge new pressures on the Social Security program itself. Currently, federal law does not bar wages submitted for illegal work from counting towards social security benefits. Thus, if an illegal alien worker in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number through the Totalization Agreement, that worker would be able claim credit for work performed legally or illegally. The same would happen if Congress adopts a guest worker program to legalize the millions of illegal aliens currently in the country.

There are obvious reasons to oppose this Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for non-citizens abroad.

Mexican workers working in the Mexico economy receive in retirement only what they paid in plus interest, whereas the U.S. Social Security system is skewed to give lower-wage earners benefits greatly in excess of what they and their employers contributed. Mexico has two different retirement programs, one for public-sector employees, which is draining the Mexican national treasury, and one for private-sector workers, which covers only 40 percent of the work force. Most Mexicans who illegally entered the United States previously lived in poverty, where they were unemployed, or worked in the off-the-record economy, or worked for employers who did not pay taxes into a retirement system.

If non-citizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens thru naturalization. Also, Mexican Totalization Agreement allows non-citizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work eight and a half years in Mexico and a year and a half in U.S. and return to Mexico and retire with full Social Security benefits.

This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work 10 years even to qualify for basic benefits-- especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire. Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged population.

How odd it is, that amid the 100 Hours Agenda in Washington, no voices have surfaced in the halls of Congress about this proposed agreement with Mexico that will effect my Social Security and my Grand-Children's Social Security.

Posted by: Ralph Rechtenberg | January 21, 2007 11:59 AM

The doubtful claim that immigration laws are "largely unenforceable," even if that is the case, is insufficient justification for the evasion of, and government support for the evasion of, those laws.

You claim that the city should stick to its local functions, eschewing the enforcement of federal regulations. But it is not true that local police forces only enforce municipal laws. What is state law, if not regulation created by a superior body, and carried out by an inferior one? (Superior/inferior are not used perjoratively here.)

But if the city should stick to local functions, as you claim, then they have no business assuring illegal immigrants -- a proactive step in the direction of a federal responsibility -- that they should have no fear of legal deportation.

There is very little justification for New Haven's plans -- legally or ethically. Advocating that they do is like a recommendation that the city make New Haven a fear-free zone for just about any seemingly petty offense. If for illegal immigrants, why not for pot-smokers?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 21, 2007 5:12 PM

I Agree With Senior Citizen, Also If You Google, Nafta Super Highway You Will See The Plans To Build A Highway That Would Connect Mexico, United
States And Canada And Kansas City Would Be Use As A Customs Office And The Truckers Would Be Mexican
Drivers Who Would Be Paid Low Wages To Bring Goods
In To The Country, This Would Then Put Trucking Companys Out Of Work. Also King John Better Wake Up Because The Plan He would Like To Start
With The Municipal I.D. Cards Will Back Fire On Him Do To The Fact That A Study Was Done And States That Have Done This The States Found Out That The Word Go Out And More Illegally Immigrants
Start To Move To Those States Which Then Had A
Impact On There School And Health Care Systems.

Posted by: AS | January 21, 2007 5:14 PM

The city cannot assure illegal immigrants that they will not be deported. Read the General Order: "It shall be the policy of the department not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking assistance." The city can assure all people that it will not inquire about their status, as it is not relevant, for example, to a police report filing. And New Haven is hardly the first city in the country to enact such an order. New York City's Executive Order 41 has been in place since September of 2003. (See http://www.nyc.gov/html/imm/html/executive/eo41.shtml)

As for city enforcement of state laws, I'm not an expert and I haven't looked into this, but as the city is a creation of the state, I would not be surprised that the city has an obligation to enforce state laws. The US Constitution creates two separate sovereigns -- the federal government and the state governments (local governments derive their governance authority from the latter although the exact relationship between a given city and state depends on the state constitution). The states can't violate federal law but whether they can or should be compelled to enforce it is another bag of constitutional and pragmatic worms (for a good start in delving into this issue further see http://www.appleseednetwork.org/servlet/ArticleInfo?articleId=71).

You may not like the city's policy, but please stop thinking that there's no legal justification for it. It's a perfectly legal policy. You're going to have to ground your arguments against in some other argument.

Posted by: community member | January 21, 2007 8:13 PM

Instead of ignoring the issues resulting from a confused, contradictory, and detrimental federal immigration policy, New Haven is doing what it can to deal with those issues in a creative and pragmatic way.
The municipal ID does not aim to fool anyone into thinking that an undocumented person is here legally.(And if anyone wishes to research the legal right of a city like New Haven to create one, he or she will find sufficient support) An ID will merely serve as a form of identification within the city for those who have no alternative. It will simply connect names with faces and a place of residence so that more hard working individuals in this city can access the most basic financial and municipal services. Safety will surely improve throughout New Haven, along with the overall quality of life. What is wrong with that?
It is time that those who immediately rile against anything which would even remotely benefit undocumented immigrants accept that it would be much more productive for our community to accept the facts and deal with them in a non-bigoted and informed manner. I could not be prouder of living in New Haven at this time.

Posted by: Ralph Rechtenberg | January 22, 2007 8:29 AM

AS,

Putting the ID issue aside for the moment, I suppose you'd say, given your position, that New Haven police might also justifiably institute a policy of refusing to ask suspects about information relating to national security issues, even where their conduct might lead the officer to so ask?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 22, 2007 10:26 AM

To As And Community Member Look Up Bill H.R.418 The Real I.D. Act Which Compel States To Design There Drivers Licenses By 2008 To Comply With Federal Antiterrorist Standards.Buttom Line This Bill Will Void This type Of Municipal I.D. Card System That New Haven Is Trying To Implentment.
Also Community Member Maybe Some People Are Bigoted Toward Immigrants, But For Myself I Found
That when Undocumented Immigants are Around. Labor
Laws And Wages Come Under Attack.

Posted by: Ralph Rechtenberg | January 25, 2007 8:31 AM

AS,

Wouldn't you like to respond?

Ralph

Posted by: Willie Williams Jr | February 27, 2007 10:48 AM

Can I Get A Municipal I.D. Card!?
Capitol City Realtors