Mediaboss Marketing

Slowlybut surely Gavin Newsom will deliver on his promise to make the taxpayers ofthis state pick up 100 percent of the cost of healthcare for those that are notlegally in this country.

Thegovernor has rolled out a $329 billion budget for the fiscal year starting July1 that sets aside $80 million to pay for the healthcare of those 65 and olderthat are in this country illegally who happen to be in California.

Itsa mere pittance especially when were talking about $80 million against anoverall spending plan of $329 billion.

Butyoure forgetting two things. The ultimate goal is free healthcare on your dimefor all illegal immigrants. Advocates peg that cost at $3.4 billion a year.Keep in mind whenever the state twirls a bauble in front of the public to gettheir support they always underestimate the cost substantially. The bestexample is high speed rail. It was only going to cost $40 billion. Now thestate is saying itll cost $77 billion and those with experience building suchrail systems elsewhere say it will easily surpass $100 billion.

Alsodont forget the state in the current budget is now providing healthcare forthose in this country illegally between the ages of 19 and 25 to the tune of$94 million a year. At the same time they are slapping penalties on those whoare citizens of this country or are here legally and are earning a paycheck ifthey are not covered by health insurance.

Doyou see a trend? The day will come in California where you may be better offnot being a citizen or having legal status to be here as well as not having ajob.

Thatnight sound like a tad over dramatic but a case can be made that we are headingin the direction where a legal citizen or someone in this country legally willbecome a second class citizen compared to those that have broken the law to behere.

Ifyou are here illegally you can already be issued a drivers license. Thanks toillegals who didnt have drivers licenses nor insurance when they were pulledover and had their cars impounded like those with drivers licenses but who hadno insurance no cars are impounded any more solely because of a failure to dothe responsible thing and legal requirement and obtain insurance.

Therehave even been bids to allow illegal residents to vote in local elections suchas schools board races.

Keepin mind two things before you rush to man the predicable barricades thatNewsoms proposal will invoke the one that says enough is enough and theother that argues they are human and deserve healthcare.

First,it is insane for this country to deny citizenship to the Dreamers as adults those brought here illegally as young children if for no other reasontaxpayers have spent a ton of money educating them. Why would you invest$130,000 in the education of a person at just the K-12 level forget community college for amoment and then deport them to whatever country so they can help strength theeconomy of a nation that competes with the United States in global markets? Atthe very least they need to be allowed to become productive citizens to providethis country with the doctors, teachers, tech workers, highly skilledagricultural workers (if you dont think there is such a thing you really needto open your eyes), nurses, and even those that handle more mundane butessential jobs so they can keep our economy going and deliver on the investmentmade in their education.

Second,a vast majority of those who are undocumented and are adults that are here inthis country work. They contribute to our economy in ways that many that arecitizens would refuse to do. That includes agricultural jobs that arent highskilled and are essentially back breaking grunt work that is key to keepingfood costs low.

Theparalysis in the immigration debate for the past 30 years that can be laid atthe feet of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, as well asunions and big business has made the entire issue of how we approach resolvingor addressing illegal and legal immigration so dysfunctional nothing ever isadopted.

Itis why the best defense and best way to go forward is pushing for a ballotmeasure that makes all those illegally in this country and residing in theGolden State legal citizens of the California with the proviso anyone who was afelon and or terrorist at the time they entered the United States would besubject to prosecution and deportation.

Californiaalready is usurping federal powers in the arenas of sanctuary cities andcommerce so why not the conferring of citizenship as well?

Thiswould work to the advantage of Californians.

Thatway anyone between the ages of 19 and 25 that is working and doesnt haveinsurance can be penalized.

Thosewho are now undocumented and working can turn in employers that are paying themunder the table without fear of being fired and not having legal recourse. Thatmeans they will be paying into Social Security to further strengthen thesystem.

Moreimportantly they can be subject to the same laws and taxes as those who arecitizens and here legally. There would be no government carve out to makeexceptions to laws simply because they are in the country illegally.

Theycould go after better paying jobs those that typically pay union scale. Theycould compete openly for limited slots at publically-funded universities.

Nowyoure probably wondering what is preventing those in this country illegallyresiding in the 49 other states from simply moving to California.

Thatsthe beauty. Nothing would.

Californiawould become a de facto sanctuary state. The legislature that acts as if itexists to lecture the federal government could tell the world send Californiayour refugees, your poor, and the downtrodden.

Afterall, the streets of California although crumbling are paved with gold.There is ample housing to go around. In short this is utopia where money growslike weeds and everyone is welcome no questions asked and no need to bringanything to the table.

Justcome here without permission and California will stick a vacuum hose into thepockets of taxpayers and siphon out everything you need.

Itsa small price for California to pay so our political leaders can put on theirresumes that they are fighting President Trump with every penny they cansqueeze out of businesses and those Californians who are working.

Follow this link:
Newsom needs to go all the way & declare undocumented legal citizens of California - Manteca Bulletin

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber?Try us and go ad-free for $1.Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Terry H. Schwadron

The new year for White House anti-immigration efforts has run into an early obstaclea federal appeals court has temporarily blocked the newly announced Trump administration policy easing the way to deny legal status to immigrants who use any publicly funded benefit, like health or food stamps.

In a brief order last week, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan denied the Trump administrations bid to allow the program to proceed. Previously there had been a federal injunction against its implementation.

But it all means is that the government must hold off from enforcement until a full hearing can be held beginning next month. But while the New York circuit ordered the temporary halt to enforcing Donald Trumps rule changes, appeals courts in other states have ruled the opposite way, making for conflict that probably ensures a Supreme Court review.

While the New York circuit ordered the temporary halt to enforcing Donald Trumps rule changes, appeals courts in other states have ruled the opposite way, making for conflict that probably ensures a Supreme Court review.

The Department of Homeland Security has called anyone using cash assistance or government-funded institutional care as a public charge.The rule change sought by the administration said that immigrants who are labeled a public charge, could be denied green cards, visas and other forms of legal immigration status.

But thats just one of several issues the White House is juggling as the anti-immigrant campaign moves into the new year.

As NBC News outlined, thenew ruleexpands the definition to include additional benefits such as food stamps, non-emergency Medicaid, certain prescription drug subsidies and housing vouchers. It says that any immigrant household, not necessarily individual, who uses or is deemed likely to use one public benefit for 12 months during a 36-month period as a target. Receipt of two public benefits in one month counts as two months, the rule noted.

The Trump administration argues that expanding the meaning of public charge helps protect American taxpayers and ensures that noncitizens in this country are self-sufficient and not a strain on public resources.Critics say it would disproportionately impact lower income immigrants and immigrants of color.

A statement by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of the Department of Homeland Security, that the public charge inadmissibility rule enforces long-standing immigration law that Congress reaffirmed in 1996.

The opponents legal team for Make the Road New York, The Legal Aid Society and the Center for Constitutional Rights issued a competing statement that the court rejected the Trump administrations claims that it cannot wait to implement its dangerous and discriminatory public charge policy change.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels, of the Southern District of New York, set the injunction on enforcement in October. At the time, he wrote,It is a rule that will punish individuals for their receipt of benefits provided by our government, and discourages them from lawfully receiving available assistance intended to aid them in becoming contributing members of our society.

Meanwhile, the number of migrants taken into custody along the U.S.-Mexico border has started to level off after several months ofdecline, according to border enforcement statistics, according to the Customs and Border Protection service. The number of people apprehended or deemed inadmissible along the southern border fell to 40,620 last month, down 72% from May, when the Trump administration declared it was at the height of a border crisis.

Of course, much of this has resulted from forcing migrants who pass through a third country, like Guatemala or Mexico, to be returned to that third country, where they are waiting for months for a change to make appeals for entry to the United States.

The Associated Press reports that the White House is considering expanding its much-challenged travel ban to additional countries this year, though it has yet to name the new, presumably Muslim-majority nations that may be added, all based on sources in the White House. The move would be timed to coincide with the third anniversary of Trumps January 2017 executive order.

At the same time, the new year is seeing an estimated 800,000 immigrants who are working legally in the United States are waiting for a green card, an unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration. There is a relatively quiet policy debate underway that has been overshadowed by the border wall fight and issues related to enforcement on the border.

It turns out that most of those waiting for employment-based green cards that would allow them to stay in the United States permanently are Indian nationals. And the backlog among this group is so acute that an Indian national who applies for a green card now can expect to wait up to 50 years to get one. The wait is largely the result of an annual quota unchanged since 1990 and per-country limits enacted decades before the tech boom made India the top source of employment-based green card seekers.

There are competing bills in Congress to deal with this, but lack of consensus has halted any comprehensive approach to immigration. The backlog has become a serious issue for business, of course, who fear that prized employees may simply go elsewhere.

The new year has brought along various new rules in the administrations continuing campaign to stop both legal and illegal immigration.

There are, for example, new cost hikes for key immigration processes, The Miami Herald reports. Citizenship and Immigration Services plans fee hikes of 83% for naturalization, from $640 to $1,170, for example. They also want to charge asylum seekers $50 for an application, thus becoming one of four countries around the world to charge for humanitarian protection.In another new rule, theadministration plans to modify regulations that would increase the waiting period to apply for employment authorization, denying the permits to asylum applicants who entered the United States illegally, terminating the permit immediately if the asylum application is denied, and removing the 30-day deadline for rulings on permit applications.

The anti-immigration program is hale and hearty.

then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, weve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism and were investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber?Try us and go ad-free for $1.Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Read the rest here:
Trump just started the new year with a dangerous new push - Raw Story

United States Congressional Budget Office

Published: Mon, Jan 13th 2020 @ 11:43 am EST

Immigration helps the U.S. economy, but its not as good for individual workers, particularly those at the low end of the wage scale for whom the increased competition for jobs leaves them worse off, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report last week. The findings both support and challenge conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers from both parties generally view immigration as a net benefit. The CBO said thats true for the overall economy, but not for those in low-skilled jobs. The report added:

Among people with less education, a large percentage are foreign-born. Consequently, immigration has exerted downward pressure on the wages of relatively low-skilled workers who are already in the country, regardless of their birthplace.

And there are many new immigrant workers to compete with. Immigrants account for about half of all newcomers to the workforce each year, the CBO said. While this influx does fuel economic growth on the national macro-level, when one explores the individual micro-level impact such policies of uncontrolled mass immigration can be proven to have negative effects on American workers who are forced to directly compete with an artificially bloated labor market, a group predominately comprised of impoverished African American and Latino citizens - those our nation has promised to do better for.

The analysis, done for the House Budget Committee, comes at a time when immigration is effectively off the table as an issue for lawmakers, with deep differences between President Trump, who wants to see some stricter limits and amped-up national enforcement efforts, and Democrats, who want to see illegal aliens granted citizenship in mass amnesties, and who oppose attempts to limit any legal form of immigration, which includes family-based 'chain migration,' a key source for low-educated and non-skilled workers.

The CBO did concede that granting legal status to illegal aliens would give them a chance to improve their situations and that the economy benefits from higher immigration because the overall labor force is more productive, but Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Affairs at NumbersUSA stated:

They answered the question that we all already know the answer to whether expanding the labor force expands the GDP. They completely failed to answer the actual important question, which is how immigration impacts per capita GDP.

The furthest CBO went was to say that whether the native-born suffer or benefit from immigration depends on whos coming. But the analysts said it was tough to figure out the exact effects of immigration amid other factors such as technology.

To the extent that newly arrived workers have abilities similar to those of workers already in the country, immigration would have a negative effect on wages. To the extent that newly arrived workers have abilities that complement those of workers already in the country, immigration would foster productivity increases, having a positive effect on wages.

But this national economic expansion does not necessarily [deliver] to increases in output per capita, or income per person, the report said. For example, business leaders say the nations enormous population of immigrants has expanded the nations workforce, increased consumption, and driven up housing prices. But that inflow has also shrunk the wages of less-educated Americans.

Logically, the CBO states that for as long as the United States continues to import millions of low skilled immigrants, salaries for Americans in occupations that will be forced to compete with them will continue to be negatively affected. However, the CBO errs in their insinuation that if the United States were to switch from a focus on low-skilled immigration to something that "complements" lower-skilled Americans, say, high-skilled immigration, everything would be better. While it is true that such shifts in national immigration policy would have a positive effect on lower-skilled American wages, it would come at the balanced cost to higher-skilled American workers.

The CBO report contradicts business claims that a bigger economy ensures bigger wages for everyone. Put simply, whatever category of American workers are forced to compete with a labor market artificially inflated by mass immigration - will have negatively affected wages. The only immigration policy that truly helps all Americans is a reduction in overall immigration numbers.

For the full story, please visit The Washington Times, and Breitbart.

Read more from the original source:
CBO: Immigration Has 'Negative Effect on Wages' - NumbersUSA

The Border Patrol had to ride to the rescue of three migrants Sunday after they got stuck on top of President Trumps border wall in San Diego.

The man and two women tried to use dense fog to cover their attempt to climb a section of 30-foot-high fence part of nearly 100 miles of replacement wall built under Mr. Trump.

They cleared the primary fence up along the border but became stuck atop the fog-slicked secondary fence, which is set back from the boundary line, creating an enforcement corridor between the two fences.

Its not clear how they managed to scale the two walls, though Customs and Border Protection suggested they likely had smugglers who were helping them but then abandoned them when they got stuck.

Agents called out the San Diego Fire Department, which had to use a truck and lengthy extension ladder to get the migrants down.

All three were determined to be in the country without permission.

These three were very fortunate to not have fallen from the top of the wall, which could have resulted in serious injury or death, said Aaron Heitke, acting chief patrol agent in the San Diego sector. These dangers are not important considerations to smugglers, who place an emphasis on profits over safety.

Falls from the wall do happen, said Supervisory Agent Jeffrey R. Stephenson, who said agents then rush them to medical attention.

The falls have led to numerous serious injuries including broken legs, broken ankles, skull fractures, brain bleeds, broken scapula, fractured vertebrae and appendicitis, he said.

The wall is the most visible of Mr. Trumps get-tough efforts on illegal immigration, though its effectiveness in stemming last years surge in the flow of immigrants is heatedly debated.

Most analysts say the wall is more effective on drug-trafficking and on migrants from Mexico, who generally didnt attempt to exploit the loopholes used by Central Americans during the surge.

The new fence design is up to 30 feet of bollard-style barrier. In San Diego, it replaced what was known as landing mat fencing, an outdated design that used thin metal plates that were easily breached.

The new design is supposed to be more resistant to cutting and climbing.

The Washington Post reported late last year that smugglers were still managing to cut holes.

But Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said he hasnt seen that.

Old sections, yes, there are a great many breaches and had the administration continued to build sections of wall like what was built under the Bush administration, those wall were breachable, Mr. Judd told The Washington Times on C-SPANs Newsmakers program in late December.

But there has been a lot of research and development that has gone into the new walls that are currently being built, he said. That research and development shows that they are much, much more difficult to breach, and again, we just havent seen any breaches.

Go here to see the original:
Illegal immigrants rescued after getting stuck on Trump's wall - Washington Times

Chad Wolf, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is directing all components to conduct a review of states' driving license issuance and sharing policies.

This is in no small measure due to the recently enacted New York State "Green-Light" statute that:

New York's law is so broad that many county clerks object that it will open the door to massive identity theft, voter fraud, and even possibly providing licenses to terrorists and other national security threats. Litigation by counties fighting against implementation has begun (see here, here, and here).

The analysis Wolf has requested is an excellent idea. One wonders, in fact, why his own Office of Policy at DHS didn't take this upon itself earlier. Note that it is not just DHS's immigration agencies such as CBP, ICE, and USCIS that are impinged by these laws, but also the Transportation Security Administration, which relies upon the secure and appropriate issuance of state driver's licenses and official ID cards in its mission of granting or denying access to individuals seeking to board commercial aircraft in the United States. There are a number of problem areas that need to be explored in these analyses, some of which are discussed below.

First, state statutes that prohibit sharing of information on licenses issued to aliens, whether those aliens are legally or illegally in the United States, violate two federal statutes, 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 and 8 U.S.C. Section 1644.

This is no small matter, given the damaging implications not just in routine illegal immigration removal cases, but more significantly to national security, alien fugitive, and criminal alien cases. My colleague Art Arthur recently blogged about a Liberian war criminal who was released by New York City Police rather than honor an immigration detainer. Think how likely such interactions will likely play out with aliens seeking licenses, which is a much more common occurrence than being taken into custody by local police. How ironic that, in pursuit of "progressive" values, the state of New York chooses to turn a blind eye toward such individuals rather than cooperate with immigration officials.

Second, there are cogent reasons to think that states that issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens most especially when the acceptance threshold for documents submitted to verify identity, citizenship, and status are so broad as to raise significant possibilities of rampant fraud, identity theft, or national security threats cannot possibly be in substantive compliance with the provisions of the federal Real ID Act (Title II of Division B of Pub. Law 109-13).

The Real ID Act prescribes minimal thresholds that must be met for states to issue driver's licenses and identification cards (IDs) that will be accepted by the federal government for specified official purposes:

The term ''official purpose'' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear powerplants, and any other purposes that the [DHS] Secretary shall determine. [Emphasis added.]

The Act is clear and detailed in its mandate that states accept only foreign passports for documentation, and also that state authorities verify the individual's status prior to issuance, through exchange of information with the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database.

States that issue driver's licenses and IDs to illegal aliens will no doubt argue that they have created a bifurcated system for issuing two types of licenses and IDs: those that are Real ID Act compliant, and those that are not, which therefore satisfies the requirements of the law. Of course, such a two-tier system vitiates the intent behind the Real ID Act, which obviously was to leverage federal powers and systems to aid states in ensuring that their documents are not provided to those who would do us harm, leaving one to ponder exactly what "compliance" means. But how can a state purport to be submitting names and other biographic data through the SAVE system (which is maintained by immigration officials) in order to produce Real ID Act-compliant licenses and IDs as federal law requires, when their own law prohibits sharing information with the federal government? How do states purport to square that circle?

We also must ask how a state using a two-tier system can possibly ensure there is no bleed-over of ineligibles who end up receiving documents that assert Real ID compliance (usually with a gold star or some other indicia) when these individuals are illegally in the United States, or have engaged in identity theft by providing fake supporting documents to obtain the license or ID card. Time after time, we have seen state motor vehicle officials engage in exactly such confusion by allowing aliens to register to vote under the motor-voter law at the time they issue a driver's license (see here and here). Why should we think they would be any more discriminating or proficient with bifurcated document-issuing systems, especially when they are being obliged to accept a proliferation of foreign documents in other languages, including from countries in which there is endemic corruption and such documents are routinely forged or obtained through illicit means?

Part of the problem, though, is with DHS itself. The department has been absurdly lenient in how it chooses to accept a state's certification that it is Real-ID Act compliant. (This is self-evident with even the most cursory glance at the compliance map on DHS's website). Not one state has been found noncompliant, and only one is "under review" but how can that possibly be when so many states have gone down the two-tier path?

It is worse when states go further to prohibit access to a state's licensing and ID database(s) for cross-check and auditing purposes, because absent such access, DHS cannot possibly ensure that a state certification isn't literally a paper exercise with no legitimate foundation on which to believe that the "compliant" documents issued reflect reality. This is one of those areas where the secretary has chosen not to exercise his or her considerable powers under the law to refuse to accept at face value the assurances of states, or to conduct audits to probe under those potentially bug-ridden certifications.

Nor does it appear that any DHS secretary has fully considered the meaning of the statutory phrase "other purposes that the Secretary shall determine", as emphasized above, in order to fully flesh out the applicability of compliant (or noncompliant) licenses or IDs to places and circumstances beyond the bare bones of nuclear plants, airplanes, and federal installations.

Finally, there appears to be a failure on the part of DHS to coordinate its mandates and obligations with other federal departments and agencies. Consider, for example, the Department of Defense (DOD). There have been a number of instances in which illegal aliens have been part of the workforce permitted onto military facilities to engage in various kinds of construction or repair work (see, e.g., here and here). How do they get in at all, if the base commander is ensuring access only to individuals possessed of Real ID-compliant licenses or ID cards? Generally under DOD policy, each base commander sets, and oversees compliance with, the rules outlining access to the facility he or she commands. Some commanders are more stringent and demanding of accountability than others.

Similarly, consider the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Section 30302, which establishes a National Driver Register maintained by the federal Department of Transportation (DOT). States choose whether to participate, but because it's in their interest, almost all do. The registermaintains a database of driver's license offenders those whose licenses have been suspended, revoked, etc. for various reasons. It is of real use when an individual applies in any state so that state may make judgments about whether it should deny a license based on violations in other states that suggest the individual is unfit to operate a motor vehicle. For this reason, 45 states and the District of Columbia apparently have signed on (see here and here).

The DOT secretary is authorized to provide information in the registerto other federal departments and agencies upon request. Its use against aliens charged for DUI/DWI and hit-and-run or vehicular homicide offenses is self-evident. While the provisions establishing the registrermake clear that provision of information must be consistent with the federal Privacy Act, it's worth noting that the only individuals who are covered by the Privacy Act are U.S. citizens and alien residents nonimmigrants and aliens illegally in the country are excluded from coverage. But the question here is simple: Has DHS ever even reached out to DOT to negotiate a memorandum of understanding for access to the register? If not, why not?

Astute readers may have noticed that I mentioned, but have not discussed, illegal voting and registration fraud by aliens. DHS agents certainly have authority to conduct investigations of such cases. Voting by aliens and false claims to U.S. citizenship are federal criminal offenses; they are also a basis for removal. But principal authority for oversight of state voter registration lists was vested in the attorney general by the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA", found at 52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq., see here and here), the "motor-voter" law that authorized registering voters when providing driver's licenses and official ID cards.

Readers may also recall that early in his tenure President Trump called for a commission to study the problem of alien voter fraud; certainly there have been plenty of indicators that such fraud exists (see here, here, here, and here). The commission disbanded without completing its work after recalcitrant states refused to cooperate. Unfortunately, the commission had no statutory basis to compel cooperation.

This is not true with the attorney general, who has authority under the NVRA to ensure against unlawful disenfranchisement of legitimate voters a significant concern, given our country's history but also to ensure that state-maintained voter registration lists consist only of legitimate voters, to ensure against the kind of fraud that dilutes the popular vote and throws close elections, such as double-voting, voting by dead people, voting by disenfranchised felons and, significant for this report, voting by aliens. The problem is that almost all of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division's efforts have been devoted to the first concern, and virtually none toward the second.

Should Attorney General Barr decide to right this imbalance, and there's every reason to think he should, then it would be right and appropriate for his office to reach out to the DHS secretary to seek assistance in the vetting of state lists through computer matching and other techniques, in order to identify aliens who may be illegally registered to vote in federal elections, purge them from the rolls, and take appropriate follow-up enforcement action against them.

Go here to see the original:
DHS Belatedly Initiates Analysis of State Laws Granting Driver's Licenses and IDs to Illegal Aliens - Immigration Blog