77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| AB104 | ||
| - | ||
| Against | The police have to much more serious crime to also play immigration officials. Only if a person is convicted of a violent or some other heinous crime, should their legal status be checked. | Apr-26-2013 |
| For | Apr-21-2013 | |
| For | Apr-21-2013 | |
| For | Apr-11-2013 | |
| For | Apr-10-2013 | |
| For | Apr-02-2013 | |
| For | Mar-31-2013 | |
| For | Mar-27-2013 | |
| For | Mar-22-2013 | |
| For | One out of ten people in Nevada are illegal aliens, we need jobs for legal residents. Please pass this bill for the sake of legal Nevadans. | Mar-19-2013 |
| For | Mar-19-2013 | |
| For | Mar-17-2013 | |
| Against | Mar-17-2013 | |
| For | I completely support this! If you are here illegally you need to go!! ASAP!! Especially when you commit crimes! | Mar-12-2013 |
| For | Mar-12-2013 | |
| For | Yes | Mar-06-2013 |
| For | Mar-01-2013 | |
| For | As a legal immigrant myself this seems to be common sense legislation. | Feb-28-2013 |
| For | Feb-28-2013 | |
| For | Feb-28-2013 | |
| For | It is about time a bill like this is brought to the floor. We as a state need to enforce our immagration laws because the federal government has failed to do so. I have been fighting for E-Verify since it was known as basic pilot. I would like to thank Hansen and Gustavson for bring the original bill. and all those whom have voted in favor of this fine bill.. | Feb-27-2013 |
| For | With the high unemployment we need to ensure all the jobs go to legal residents! | Feb-24-2013 |
| For | I support this completely. Why is it that we do not go after employers that hire illegal aliens. If you are not here legally then you should not be allowed to work. | Feb-20-2013 |
| For | Feb-19-2013 | |
| For | Just common sense. This should not require legislation to become common practice. | Feb-18-2013 |
| For | Feb-15-2013 | |
| Against | NRS 171 subsection 1 As proposed is quite dangerous!!! It does a number of things wrong. 1) It assumes the person held in custody is guilty of an assumed immigration violation until otherwise proven innocent. 2) It authorizes extended detention in the event that immigration status cannot be verified 3) It mandates that the person "shall" (ie: must) be transferred to Federal custody without regards to the situation or condition in which immigration status cannot be positively verified What happens if Internet, electronic, or other methods of immigration status are unavailable due to an "Act of God" or unplanned outages of computer systems? This bill mandates extended detention or transference of a person to the Federal government if such a situation arose. Of course to appease people, subsection 2 was added that says a person is assumed not guilty of an immigration violation if they possess a Nevada driver's license, id card, or federal ID card. So according to this act, a citizen of Nevada must always be in possession of their "papers" to prove themselves innocent of immigration violations ? Welcome to Nazi Germany, "Your papers please." My suggestion is: Change the wording to assume innocence for all persons unless reasonable or probable cause indicates an immigration violation. If the Federal government refuses transfer of the person, then detention should be made. Under no circumstances should any lawful resident or citizen of Nevada be required to possess "papers" in order to be released after a detention. Additionally requiring a copy of each 1099 form filed each year is not necessary and is an invasion on the rights of persons employed in the private sector. The State of Nevada has no legitimate need to have these 1099 forms other than to effectively make private information accessible to state government for exploitation without court warrant. The only acceptable part of this bill is the requirements that public employees/contractors Everify. | Feb-13-2013 |
| For | Definite YES on Sections 1, 4 and 5. Maybe on Sections 2 and 3. How can you provide 1099s from previous years if you are just starting the business? This requirement would be applicable only to an existing business trying to relocate to (or continuing in) NV, but why the requirement for 1099s? What does that prove? | Feb-13-2013 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|