Bob Barr takes on US Postal Service, E-Verify and the execution of Troy Davis

E-Verify has morphed into a monster
by Bob Barr
as published on The Daily Caller
9/19/2011

In this column last week, I raised the alarm about the “E-Verify” program proposed to be implemented as part of the Legal Workforce Act (HR 2164) under consideration to be fast-tracked by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TX). Now, even before the legislation has passed the House, it has morphed into something far broader and more troubling than its initial permutation. It truly must be rejected.

Originally, the most troubling aspect of this legislation — supposed to protect the American economy against illegal immigrants being employed by U.S. businesses — was its requirement that businesses run names of job applicants through the government-run E-Verify database to ensure new hires are legally authorized to work in the United States. Although its supporters said that the bill was not a “National ID,” it clearly incorporated the potential to become just that. It even included a mandate that the government sign off on any persons hired by companies.

Read more…


Bob Barr @ Daily Caller:
Time to move the Postal Service from the Flintstones to UPS

For years, the United States Postal Service (USPS), a dinosaur in the Digital Age, has been hemorrhaging financially because of its inability to respond to market forces. And now members of Congress have found themselves in a position where they cannot simply punt the agency’s problems further down the road. But they probably will do just that.

The USPS is staring at a budget deficit of more than $9 billion and may not be able to make a $5.5 billion payment now due for the exceptionally generous health care benefits it is committed to pay its retirees, thanks largely to union pressure.

According to The New York Times, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warns that the USPS will default unless Congress gives the USPS greater flexibility to deal with the crisis, which may include “eliminating Saturday mail delivery, closing up to 3,700 postal locations and laying off 120,000 workers.”

Read more


Bob Barr at CNN:

Ruling to execute Troy Davis violates core principles

Only the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles stood between life and death for Troy Anthony Davis, and the core principles of American jurisprudence should have been the board’s guide. But the board ignored those principles in denying Davis clemency.

Davis was convicted in 1991 of the 1989 murder of Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail. But the trial included no physical evidence to support his conviction. The prosecution produced no murder weapon, no DNA evidence and no surveillance tapes.

He was sentenced to death on the basis of nine so-called eyewitnesses, who testified in the trial. Seven of those witnesses, however, have since recanted or materially changed their stories. The jury, for instance, relied on two people who did not witness the crime but who testified that Davis had confessed to the shooting. Since then, both have said they were lying.

Read more…

12 thoughts on “Bob Barr takes on US Postal Service, E-Verify and the execution of Troy Davis

  1. Kevin Knedler

    Did Lamar Alexander move? I thought all of his politics were in state of Tennessee or with the Bush # 41 WhiteHouse? And, I thought he was in the US Senate.

  2. AyatollahGondola

    E-verify would not be a necessity or a requirement if the immigration enforcement arm of the government was directed to remove illegals as they were discovered. The ridiculous part of the E-verify program is that there are no provisions to do anything after they’ve identified a person not authorized to work. If that was included, the rejected workers would be afraid to apply elsewhere afterwards, therby giving us a two-fer for the money. What we would get if it passes is a more transient, increased revolving door, and increased effort to counterfeit ID’s that will pass.

  3. paulie Post author

    E-verify would not be a necessity or a requirement

    It’s not necessary at all. We should just legalize all (im)migration and keep the regime out of the hiring process.

    if the immigration enforcement arm of the government was directed to remove illegals as they were discovered.

    No human being is illegal, and “removing” millions of people would be extremely unethical as well as damaging to the economy.

    There would be nothing wrong with allowing millions of people to immigrate legally, and it would be good for the rest of us too.

    Sure a lot of people violated “laws” that should have never been on the books at all. The thing to do is take those “laws” off the books, not to punish (and others) them further.

  4. AyatollahGondola

    Yes paulie,
    The native indians should have just accepted the migration too, saving them countless lives and assimilating to the migrants culture without any opposition whatsoever. In fact, nobody should own a thing, bacuae to do so would set the stage for possessive battles. There’s no mine or yours, only ours. the only thing I don’t get in your grand scheme is who does decide who gets what and when, and how much or hoq often. I mean, if “the regime” gets cut out of the process, who will it be?

  5. paulie Post author

    The native indians should have just accepted the migration too, saving them countless lives and assimilating to the migrants culture without any opposition whatsoever.

    And to think, all this time I had no idea that all European settlers wanted was jobs that Native Americans were offering them, until some tribal chiefs got in the way. Thanks for setting me straight on that with your oh so logical comparison.

    In fact, nobody should own a thing, bacuae to do so would set the stage for possessive battles.

    Huh? That’s so far removed from what I believe…I’m not sure where to begin. OK, how about here:

    Does anyone truly own something – say their business, if someone else gets to tell them who they can and can’t hire?

    There’s no mine or yours, only ours.

    That would be your position, not mine.

    I say it’s “my business” to decide who to hire and “your business” to decide who to rent an apartment to. You say those are “our” collective decision that “mine and yours” can’t hire X or rent to Y.

    the only thing I don’t get in your grand scheme is who does decide who gets what and when, and how much or hoq often. I mean, if “the regime” gets cut out of the process, who will it be?

    Hmmmm….how about the people who actually own any given thing get to decide who to sell it to, share it with or give it to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *