Talk:Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007

"Undocumented worker/immigrant" is not a neutral term.
"Illegal Alien" is the correct term for a person present in the US without a visa or other authorization. "Undocumented worker/immigrant" is used exclusively by mass immigration and open borders enthusiasts, such as the supporters of this amnesty legislation.BulldogPete 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No term is neutral. Please don't conduct a Wikipedia-wide campaign to change every usage from one to another. -Will Beback · † · 20:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain?
The bill provides that illegal immigrants will receive special privileges if they document their presence and employment status in the U.S. since June 2006. Since they are "undocumented workers", how is this accomplished? For example, are the facts listed on forged papers accepted as authoritative? Also, the effects of this disclosure should be elaborated. Are employers listed by these illegal aliens theoretically subject to prosecution? If so, will they voluntarily confirm application data? If an employer refuses to provide corroborating information, will the data stated on the application be accepted, or rejected?

Since immigrants on current visas are not eligible for the amnesty, is there concern that people will be afraid to participate in the future guest worker program, for fear of losing their status as illegal aliens and thus eligibility for future citizenship? Do requirements for nondiscrimination or due process allow the immigrants on current visas or long-time residents of Mexico to file a lawsuit demanding equal treatment with people who can prove that they have violated American laws? Mike Serfas 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Employment Verification controversy
The wording of the Senate bill says that all individuals, including U.S. citizens, will have to verify work eligibility with the government. The ACLU has thrown around the term "No Work list". This should definitely be mentioned in the article but I can't find a neutral source. Noclip 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about the House bill in commitee, not the Senate bill recently pulled from the senate floor. Jon 21:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the House bill contains the same or similar langugage about the employee verification requirements. I agree that this should be mentioned, though information is difficult to find on it due to it being a much less publicized bill. In any case, this link to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) discusses this concept, and they cite all sources (usually H.R. 1645 and S. AMDT 1150 themselves) and seems to be generally neutral (except for clearly opposing the bill) and informative. Check under the heading "Legislation Mandating Nationwide Expansion Fails to Pass Congress"... http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0707/ MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)