Dear Sirs,

There is a serious and extremely annoying flaw in your comment system.

I posted a comment a little while ago. Said I had to be logged in so I did. I then attempted to comment on this entry. I spent about 15 minutes very carefully framing my comment and editing it to the best of my ability. I clicked "Preview" four or five times until I thought I had it right. Then I clicked "Post". Said I had to be logged in. Logged in. Back to comment and it was gone. I kicked the dog. She didn't like it but I think she understood. The master was pissed.

Gentlemen, you have one of the better blogs out there. I read you almost daily. You are one of the few blogs that motivates me to comment. The posts are trenchant, the comments usually logical and well informed.

Work with me guys. I'll still be here reading, but I am at a time in my life where fifteen minutes is becoming dear.

Respectfully,
Roy

Roy Lofquist:

Do you mean the comment in the advice for Mitt Romney post, or a later one?

Dafydd

Decades of government failure to enforce the laws - peaking with Bush - shows that the text in blue will be either never be enforced or will be watered down. And, the continuous stream of ProIllegalImmigrationPropaganda - such a mighty stream that I have a whole category just for it - shows that the press will do their part in the effort. Vast stretches of this bill are no better than fiction.

One more, dear to my heart. Do you think are Congresswhatevers read Big Lizards?

O/T pls get the word out..
I've sent this email to Fox,GlennBeck,Washington Times,Pajams Media, Newt.org,Rush ..pls pick out 2-3 outfits to send it to
July 4th nationwide rally againt Illegal Immigration Amnesty Bill

just copy and paste.

Sir/Madame

Please promote this idea. Thx

I do a good deal of blogging on conservative sites. Several of us believe that to defeat the Amnesty Illegal immigration bill a rally would be a great idea.

* Attempt to get the word out that on July 4th each state capital should be the focal point of the rally. Attempt to gather 100k at each capitol as an average. This would be 5 million people!!

* Attempt to get 250,000 in the metro DC area to the Mall and then surround the WH.

* Neither the pols nor the MSM could avoid getting the message...pls pass the word.

Best regards,

then add you name address tel num,email...lets get the word out

Dafydd, the Heritage Foundation makes some specific claims about the bill, including citation of paragraph numbers, which seem to contradict what you're saying.

I've quoted your research to several people, and I'd definitely rather your sources be right -- but if they're right, your sources are wrong, and dangerously so.

Of course, I have to add that even if they're right, it looks to me like the only objectionable part is the temporary worker program, which is almost innately objectionable anyhow (but can be endured and perhaps repaired to some extent later).

Oh, to the people who say that lack of enforcement will render this bill toothless -- so what? Any bill would be affected by that, if true. This bill can't possibly be harder to enforce than the existing state of the law. Frankly, I'm with Dafydd on this: any decent attempt is better than none. And this bill definitely contains a decent attempt.

Dear Dafydd,

I was trying to post a comment to "Fleshing Out the Outline, take 2".

I had posted a comment on a previous article and then tried to post on this one. It let me in to comment, then when I clicked "Post" it said "You must be registered...". I went through the sign-in again and when returned to the comment it was blank.

Apparently signed-in status changed between the time I started the comment and when I tried to post it.

I have been having a little bit of trouble with "Typekey". Even though I select the option to remain signed in for 2 weeks It seems I have to sign-in everytime I enter a new blog and attempt to comment.

I've been retired for a couple of years so what follows may look a bit disorganized. I have done web stuff but it was almost all server side and very little client side.

With that said, the proximate cause of the problem is that the script that calls the sign-in clears the comment on return.

That leads me to conclude that the "Post" button processing queries the sign-in status. The sign-in status is not kept in the "Session" context, but, calls "Typekey" which holds signed-in status across the range of its subscribers. Either that or the "post" function checks the status down the line.

Thus, if your sign-in has expired with "typekey" you lose the comment.

I am not familiar with the product you are using for blogging. I can conjure a number of different structures that explain a lot of its behavior but that is just mental dross that intrudes on important stuff. I haven't been retired long enough to clear that old world from my mind.

This problem is no biggie. It happens far too infrequently to merit investigation. The only consequence is for some poor bloke like me to lose fifteen minutes of work. It's not like it causes a 747 to fall out of the sky.

I've had fairly comlex systems in the field for a long time. It is not uncommon to have these kind of problems pop up ten years later. The question is always: "Is it worth $20,000 to fix it?". They all have warts. The fewer the warts the prettier the girl. They all have warts.

I apologize for troubling you with this without thing it through. It was late and the gin was almost gone. Please continue the good work.

Pax Vobiscum,
Roy

p.s., Just happened again when I tried to post this. Problem is probably with "Typekey". Either they just don't like me or it is on my end. I have cookies enabled so I can't imagine why.

Roy Lofquist:

I notice you don't have a URL entered into the URL text box. I don't know why, but for some reason -- at least for me -- I have to put a valid URL there for this system here (not TypeKey) to remember me and not require logging in.

I know, it doesn't make any sense; but that's what I found empirically.

If you don't have your own blog, try copying the URL to this site and pasting it into the URL text box: http://biglizards.net/blog

Then click the "Aye" radio button, and see if that works.

Dafydd

This is the problem:

SEC. 1 EFFECTIVE DATE TRIGGERS

(a) With the exception of the probationary benefits conferred by Section 601 (h), the provisions of Subscetion C of Title IV, and the admission of aliens under Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)), as amended by Title IV,

(i)the programs established by Title IV of this Act; and (ii)the programs established by Title IV of this Act that grant legal status to any individual or adjust the current status of any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, shall become effective on the date that the Secretary submits a written certification to the President and the Congress that the following border security and other measures are funded, in place and in operation:

Translation: Except for those illegal aliens qualifying under Section 601(h), no illegal aliens can obtain new status until the Secretary of Homeland Security sends the president and Congress a letter saying all triggers have been met.

The proposed bill goes on to detail the triggers which include the hiring of Border Patrol agents until 18,000 are on staff, the construction of at least 200 miles of vehicular barriers and 360 miles of fencing, the end of "catch and return," the establishment and use of new enforcement tools designed to keep illegals from working, and the processing of applications of aliens for Z status.

The unreasonability of the schedule for debate on this bill is exemplified by the citation to Section 601(h), which begins on page 260 of the draft bill. Thus to even begin to review the draft bill you have to know how to read such a provision and be able to print off the bill or how to work the unwieldy online draft at NationalReview.com.

When you find Section 601(h), you may be surprised to read that the exception to the triggers appears to be enormously large:

Section 601(h) Treatment of Applicants

(1)IN GENERAL --An alien who files application for Z-nonimmigrant status shall, upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs (f) and (g) and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks, to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible

(A)be granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application;

(B)may in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to re-enter the United States pursuant to existing regulations governing advance parole;

(C)may not be detained for immigration purposes, dteremined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alient isdetermined to be ineligible for Z nonimmigration status; and

(D) may not be cosndiered an unauthorized alien (as defined in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3))) unless employment authorization under subparagraph (A) is denied.

Section 601(h)(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) lay out additional provisions concerning this huge --indeed almost certainly 90% plus?-- portion of the illegals currently in the country that are not subject to the "triggers," and even notes in subparagraph (5) that if an illegal is arrested or detained prior to filing hisor her application for Z permit status, "the Secretary shall provide the alien with a reasonable opportunity to file an application under this section after such regulations are promulgated." Unless the computer spits out a no within 2 days of submitting the application, the illegal gets probationary Z status --before even one more mile of fence is built or a workplace verification system is constructed.

It seems to me that this makes the rest of the bill just so much used toilet paper.

But as long as we are wishing, how about a provision that would mandate deportation if the immigrant is caught voting before attaining citizenship?

Wtanksleyjr:

Dafydd, the Heritage Foundation makes some specific claims about the bill, including citation of paragraph numbers, which seem to contradict what you're saying.

I just read the Heritage Foundation article, and I didn't see anything that contradicts what I wrote. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

I do notice some egregious errors in the Heritage study; for example, there is this paragraph:

Amnesty for Gang Members: Under Section 602(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."

It's true that mere membership in a gang is not a bar to getting a provisional (or probationary, the act uses both terms) Z-visa, if such membership is renounced. But it is a falsehood to say that such renunciation is the only requirement; there is also the requirement that the applicant have no felony conviction, fewer than three misdemeanor convictions, and no "serious crime" conviction (Title VI, sec. 601(d)(1)(F).

In other words, yes, a former gang member can get a Z-visa by renouncing his gang membership, but only if he does not have a significant criminal record. That's a heck of an omission, Professor Kobach!

Then there is this from the Heritage study:

Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws: The bill would transform Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law enforcement agency into an amnesty distribution center. Under Sections 601(h)(1, 5) if an ICE agent apprehends aliens who appear to be eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain them. Instead, ICE must provide them a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. Instead of initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.

"Just about any illegal alien?" Well, except for:

• Those being prosecuted by ICE for having committed a serious crime.
• Those who snuck in here after January 1st, 2007 -- for example, the "flood" of illegals that Prof. Kobach expects after the bill is enacted.
• Anyone suspected of forging documents to make it appear that he is eligible for the Z-visa.
• Any illegal alien who fails to apply in time: They get 12 months after the law is enacted, which can be extended for another 12 months if the secretary (I'm not sure which one it would be) determines such an extension is necessary.
• Or the spouse or minor children of anyone in the category above!

In other words, the only group of immigrants whom ICE is not allowed to continue processing for deportation are those who qualify for a Z-visa... the least dangerous class of illegals. Those illegals who are the highest priority to expel from the country are still subject to ICE's jurisdiction and can be deported, even during the 12-month window.

Finally, this Heritage Foundation report, per usual nowadays, is written with such a palpable bias that I cannot trust anything they say, even apart from the two major errors (or perhaps "lies by omission") op. cit. The good professor appears to be suffering from IDS: immigration derangement syndrome.

As usual, much of the report is devoted to the trademark Heritage style: argument by assertion ad infinitum. Notwithstanding that the word "amnesty" does not mean what Professor Kobach appears to believe it means, this single article uses the word no fewer than twenty-four times (!) to describe the legislation or its components.

Well... who could argue with that?

But again, what part of this report contradicts anything I wrote? I cannot find it.

Dafydd

RRRoark:

Everything you quoted refers to the provisional Z-visa. Which is just what I said: The provisional Z-visas are available immediately, but the regular Z-visas (the only ones that lead to citizenship) will only be made available after the security triggers are met.

That was the grand compromise. I thought I made the distinction clear.

Dafydd

No more blather:

It is not just government failure, we eat the food and live in the houses these people help build and clean. Personally I am getting tired of the constant and useless bitching and moaning from the hard right on this, they offer no politically realistic solutions to the problem, they just rant and rave and make baseless accusations against anyone with the temerity to disagree with them. I am getting fed with it myself.

In the last year border crossings are down 10%. Bush has spent more money and put more resources into enforcement than any president in history. People like Fred Thompson can say what they want but when he was actually in office his attitudes were very much like McCain's. He only became a hardliner when political oppurtunism raised its ugly head.

Toward the end of Clinton's term arrests begin to drop here because people became more sophisticated about evading detection, an entire industry grew up around it in fact. That is one reason they want the cards today.

I wonder sometimes if certain people really want a solution. It seems to me that some people on the right are using this the same way Al Sharpton uses race.

Dear Sirs,

I know that dissecting and arguing about provisions in the bill is great fun. But that's all it is. Any implementation of any part of this bill will crash and burn out of the starting gate.

Start with the ID cards. How do you verify the authenticity of the documents? Ah, you say - we'll check it against the Social Security database. They are not in the database. They are undocumented workers, right?

Driver's License? You have to have a system that talks to 50 different systems, one for each state. Even then, you have to have a central system of already issued ID cards that check whether the info has been used before.

Utility bills or anything similar are very difficult to check for forgeries. There is a large industry out there that produces forged documents of very high quality. It used to be very expensive to produce forgeries like these but with modern technology it is real cheap.

Any system you devise has to be built. From experience we know it will be 5 years before the beta rolls out and then another 5 years to get it in working order.

How do you get them to come forward? Right now there is less than one in a thousand chance that they will be caught and deported. What do they have to do to get an ID? Pay $1,000 and get on a list. There is a visceral fear of getting on a list. They do not trust the government to not change the rules. True, some will do it. These are the people working for large employers where they are more likely to be caught. Anybody want to bet that it will be more than five percent?

Border security? As the man said, show me a ten foot wall and I'll show you an eleven foot ladder. The current plan is to secure a couple of hundred of the most active entry points. They'll just go around them. Currently we find 20 to 30 bodies in the Sonoran Desert each summer. That is a vast desolate place. I've been there. Even in an SUV you are very careful where you go. We are finding only a small percentage of the actual bodies. They are willing to risk death to get here.

Even with the massive resources we pour into the war on drugs we intercept less than ten percent of those smuggled across the southern border. Close the border? Rots of Ruck.

We've got an intractable problem. We've had them before and massive goverment efforts have proven disastrous. Prohibition didn't work. It did give us organized crime and a nation of scofflaws. The drug war has given us criminal gangs, an overburden criminal justice system, crowded prisons and a nasty little insurrection in Mexico. All this without curbing drug use by any significant amount.

Life is tough. Grin and bear it. Or go out and muck it up some more.

Regards,
Roy

Roy Lofquist:

You take fingerprints and a digitized picture; the purpose is not to check whether this really is Jesus Gabriel Garcia, instead of Juan Garcia y Vega using the birth certificate of Jesus Gabriel Garcia who died at age 3 months. The purpose is to keep track of the person now known as Jesus Gabriel Garcia, with the following fingerprint and photographic data.

You do a records check to see whether those fingerprints or digiphoto are associated with anyone in the NCIC, on the terrorist watch list, known to be in MS-13 or a drug cartel, or who is wanted for any other reason.

If in the future, Garcia y Vega/Garcia commits a felony and is deported, then when he attempts to re-enter, you have his fingerprints -- and you can deny him entry.

Why should Garcia risk contact with the USCIS to get the Parole Card? What's in it for him?

Because the huge majority of illegal aliens do work at companies, big or small, construction or restaurant or hotel or farm, that will be subject to fatal fines and even criminal prosecutions if they continue hiring illegals. I suppose he could become an itinerant house painter or plumber; but 85% will be unable to earn money unless they 'fess up and at least get a Parole Card.

That's the advantage: You can now work; you can now report a crime if you are victimized; you no longer have to flee if USCIS comes to your neighborhood.

As to the illegals willing to risk death in the Sonora... with the reforms to our legal immigration policy, any honest man will be able to determine what he must do to be allowed in legally (which he cannot do in the arbitrary, capricious, and vindictive system we have today, all words used literally).

If he learns better English, goes back to school, studies a subject that will lead to a better job, gets married, and maintains a clean record, he will have a very, very good shot at legal entry.

So why the hell would he try to cross the desert with a 12-oz bottle of Evian?

He does it today because he has absolutely no clue why he was turned away, but his buddy Enrique was accepted; thus, he has no idea in the world how to improve his chances for next time. So he grits his teeth and tries Rattlesnake Road.

Under the new system, if he doesn't get in this year, he knows exactly why: If he improves his score in that area, he'll get in next year.

Thus, the only people with any incentive to brave the Sonora desert will be people who know they would never be qualified to get in legally... in other words, criminals, terrorists, and the like.

Since the Border Patrol knows it's dealing with real bad guys, they can use much more aggressive, paramilitary tactics to stop them; we're not talking about honest and decent families... we're talking about cocaine mules, escapees from Mexican calaboozas, and Osman bin-Abdullah Al Jihadi, traveling under the name Panchito Tómas Maria Yorba and pretending to be a Guatemalan.

Dafydd

If in the future, Garcia y Vega/Garcia commits a felony and is deported, then when he attempts to re-enter, you have his fingerprints -- and you can deny him entry

Sounds a lot like my idea Dafydd ;-)

First, I agree that the report is written in extremely hostile and biased manner, at best, and at least parts of it are deceptive (hopefully merely because of the hostility). I wouldn't think of using it as an authority because of that.

I'm also pissed at them for their abuse of the idea of "extreme hardship". That term's been used in law before; it's well-defined and not subject to the abuse they claim it'll get.

[re: the Heritage report, q.v.]
"But again, what part of this report contradicts anything I wrote? I cannot find it."

I assume you must mean any _supported_ claims that essay makes. It makes many unsupported ones that contradict your sources, such as "A family of five could purchase visas for the bargain price of $5,000—some $20,000 short of the net cost that household is likely to impose on local, state, and federal government each year, according to Heritage Foundation calculations." (Your sources say that welfare payments are forbidden to Z-visa holders.)

Now for my best attempt at finding contradictions. At least treat these as areas where further research is needed -- I want to prove that these arguments are false, since if they're true .

1. 'The Permanent "Temporary" Visa': this section claims that the Z-visa is only for "illegals" (and cites the bill). Your summaries make it clear that the Z-visa is a general-purpose temporary worker program (i.e., not "only for illegals"). This section also makes a number of claims about exclusive privileges available to the Z-visa holders which don't seem to "square" with the idea of a temporary worker program.

2. 'Reverse Justice': I'm not sure if this contradicts your sources, but it seems pretty strong. I'm also pretty sure they're missing the point of that part of the bill (the point being to encourage *otherwise innocent* illegal immigrants to register so that we can track them, by any means possible). The point isn't to set free criminals (who would obviously not be "prima facie eligible"), but to make tracking down the non-criminals easier. (The next section of the article makes the same point, to which I have the same rebuttal.)

3. 'Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens': again, another allegation of a special benefit available to Z-visa holders but not to other visa holders (and, in this case, not available to citizens in general). I'm not sure I care -- this seems like a "state's rights" issue -- but still an odd claim.

4. 'Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers': this does contradict what you were saying, or at least it's a powerful rhetorical counterpunch. If provisional Z-visas are the same as normal Z-visas, what's the point of talking about delaying the rest of the law until enforcement is in place? Is that a meaningful concession? Even you agree that temporary worker programs are the least desirable part of this law, and that's the one part that appears "almost" fully in place before enforcement begins.

I suspect that the catch here is in the word "almost". I bet that the provisional Z-visas are different in some important way that Heritage isn't talking about. I just don't know what it is.

(I also personally suspect that the Z-visa program will be very useful in allowing us to track former illegal immigrants. Having data is better than not having it. So in spite of opposing temporary worker programs in general, I don't mind this one... And I look forward to eventually ironing out the problems in this program with future Congresses.)

-Billy

Dear Dafyyd,

I highly commend to you 'Illegal immigrants refrain: Leaving America is not an option"

It is highly illuminating as to the motivations of the people we want to sign up. I lived in the Southwest for thirty years and this certainly rings true to me.

Note especially if you will the car wash owner who says "I'm not worried about immigration raids," the 46-year-old said. "If they're going to do that they are going to do it at the big textile factories, where they have 40 or 50 illegal workers at a time."

I know a bit about the construction industry. I authored a payroll system and a sub-contractor scheduling system for one of the largest home builders in Phoenix. The contractor payroll was about 50 people. All of the work is done by sub-contractors. On a major development, about 300 homes, there were about 100 subcontractors. Many of these subs did not have permanent employees but got them through hiring halls as needed. Many of these workers were off the books. They didn't pay social security and neither did the employer. This is a big factor when you are bidding on a job. Those carpenters and drywallers you see are temp workers working for smallish sub-contractors.

The "coming out of the shadows" thing is much less significant than they would have you believe. The Mexican section of Phoenix is about 50 square miles. The high crime areas are comparitively small. The problem is violent drug gangs. They rule by intimidation. Legal residents won't report criminal activity. It's dangerous.

If you have other points to make I would be more than happy to address them.

Regards,
Roy

Wtanksleyjr:

'The Permanent "Temporary" Visa': this section claims that the Z-visa is only for "illegals" (and cites the bill). Your summaries make it clear that the Z-visa is a general-purpose temporary worker program (i.e., not "only for illegals"). This section also makes a number of claims about exclusive privileges available to the Z-visa holders which don't seem to "square" with the idea of a temporary worker program.

I hope I didn't write that! I don't think I did.

No, the temporary (guest) worker program is the Y visa, not the Z visa; the Z visa is available only to those currently illegal, as I believe I said.

'Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens': again, another allegation of a special benefit available to Z-visa holders but not to other visa holders (and, in this case, not available to citizens in general). I'm not sure I care -- this seems like a "state's rights" issue -- but still an odd claim.

Since I never made mention of it, it cannot contradict anything I wrote <g>. For what it's worth, I'm against it, but I have no idea if it's still in the bill or ever was.

'Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers': this does contradict what you were saying, or at least it's a powerful rhetorical counterpunch. If provisional Z-visas are the same as normal Z-visas, what's the point of talking about delaying the rest of the law until enforcement is in place?

They're not the same. What I called the "provisional Z-visas" are evidently (according to Kyl) called Parole Cards: The only benefit they confer is not to be deported merely for being here. They do not set the immigrant on the road to becoming a citizen or even getting a green card -- a huge benefit that is rightly denied those who haven't yet made a committment.

And I'm still hopeful that we can put a time limit on Parole Card holders who do not apply for a Z visa.

Such workers are not "regularized;" they are only put in a database and left in a limbo state where they won't be deported as long as they keep working and stay out of trouble. To me, to "regularize" means to set on the path to citizenship, as was done in 1986.

Parole-Card holders do not accrue Social Security benefits, nor can they collect welfare, nor (I would hope!) can they get in-state tuition, even if that benefit is offered to state residents who are Z-visa holders. The slightest infraction can send them packing out of the country.

And if deported, they will be permanently and forever barred from ever getting any kind of a visa: work, student, not even a tourist visa. That's also in the bill, according to Kyl.

Be careful not to confuse the Parole Card with the Y visa; the latter is for people currently outside the United States to legally come here to work for two years, then back for one, repeated twice more.

The Parole Card is for people currently here illegally, and there is no specific time limit (though I think there should be).

Roy Lofquist:

Note especially if you will the car wash owner who says "I'm not worried about immigration raids," the 46-year-old said. "If they're going to do that they are going to do it at the big textile factories, where they have 40 or 50 illegal workers at a time."

Hah, that's the beauty of this new system: Because of the new reporting requirements on businesses and the database of Parole-Card holders, there is no need for a raid; fining the employers who continue to hire illegals can be done entirely administratively... by computer!

And if the car wash owner fails to file those reports, he'll get it in the neck even faster and harder, just like happens if he fails to file his quarterly tax reports.

USCIS doesn't need to go anywhere: The car wash owner receives a notice in the mail that he owes X amount as a fine; and if he doesn't pay, DHS attaches his bank accounts. Just like the IRS.

Many of these subs did not have permanent employees but got them through hiring halls as needed. Many of these workers were off the books. They didn't pay social security and neither did the employer.

That becomes tremendously harder after this bill is enacted into law: In order to maintain his license, the subcontractor construction company will have to file a bunch of paperwork; and it will require accounting of all employees, temporary or not, "hiring hall" or not (they use street corners here in SoCal).

If he cannot account for all his employee expenses well enough to satisfy DHS's accounting software, he will be automatically slammed. Or at the least, hauled in for an audit -- and "sloppy record keeping" will be no more a defense than it is with the IRS. You are required to keep those records (as every small business owner, such as myself, knows all too well).

The real downside is that these small employers probably will comply with the law; it's simpler and cheaper than cheating. But that will mean the cost of many things will rise, leading to some significant inflation.

I hope that Parole-Card holders will not be under the jurisdiction of minimum-wage laws; I would certainly try to get that into the bill, including an override of state or local minimum-wage laws.

Dafydd

Dear Dafyyd,

All points taken and acknowledged. You're correct. All it takes to make it work is an information system as you described.

I have built these kind of systems. I was in the business for more than 40 years. I actually worked with a couple of vacuum tube machines. Along with building a number of major systems, I was also a student of the industry. Did you know that the FBI spent 55 million over 7 years for their system then abandoned it? There are number of notable fiascoes over the years where the government tried to build complex information systems and then abandoned them. My best guess is that if the government did what they did with the IRS and the Post Office you might get a workable system within 5-7 years.

By the time they can get it working the whole house of cards would have collapsed.

Regards,
Roy

Roy Lofquist:

The killer is that such systems already exist -- they're used by every credit-card company in the world. And plenty of other companies have branches in many states and often many countries, yet have a contiguous-appearing applications environment that any employee can plug into at any time, from any location, log on, and do his work.

(I keep trying to tell friends of mine that desktops are software, hence totally portable: Your desktop is just a series of variable values that can display on any monitor of sufficient size.)

The government doesn't need to design and build a proprietary network; the only reason they do is so that favored campaign contributer so-and-so can get the $8 billion contract.

Just find out what the credit-card companies use -- say, just for kicks, let's use the same system as Visa! -- and use that. Should be both portable enough for individual USBP agents to use (like restaurants running your card and getting a confirmation number) and secure enough to prevent the vast majority of tampering attempts.

Can it be busted? Anything can be busted. But the current system is eminently bustable... and I think the Visa and MasterCard credit-card systems are more secure than what we have now: They've had decades to work on them and a huge financial incentive to plug any holes, since they have to eat the cost of any skulduggery.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)