Bill on Table - Mandate E-Verify

[Anonymous]

This thread is full of "whatabout" isms.

If you are legally allowed to work, E-Verify shouldn't be a hurdle at all.

If you are not legally allowed to work, then don't work. If you "need" to work, then return to your country and look for work there.

It isn't that complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with E-Verify. Everyone should support it.

And bring back Secure Communities - even if the democrats are opposed to Secure Communities. It is the right thing to do.

I don't think most people are against e-verify, as evidenced by the polls, including Dems. However, a few years ago some Tea Party members and R Rick Perry were against it. It's usually the business people and politicians beholden to the business people who are against it, yes including some Dems. Something about too much regulation and burdening the businesses with more bureacracy and paperwork.

What is "Secure Communities"?

It's interesting that the arguments against e-verify and holding illegal criminals until ICE can pick them up are the same. Too much work/not the job of the person being tasked with the work.

PP here.. I agree with you, the only thing is that Dems aren't hypocritical about e-verify. Look up thread.. someone posted a list of senators who voted for the 2013 immigration bill, which included expanding e-verify. Lots of Dems were for it. Lots of Rs were against it.

Look at what the bill consisted of. It has a lot of really good immigration reform, specifically calls out chain migration and visas for low skilled workers. It does allow for path to citizenship, but it clearly states that these folks could not get any kind of federal aid while on the provisional status. And yes, it states the person cannot have any kind of criminal conviction to get amnesty. Lots of money for border security and law enforcement. Shame it didn't pass.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557

The Dems being for e-verify and against local law enforcement holding illegal aliens who commit crimes for ICE is hypocritical. How can you be ok with requiring additional work and responsibility for private business owners (e-verify) but against requiring additional work and responsibility for government offices (holding illegal aliens for ICE/notifying ICE of criminals being held) without being a hypocrite?

1. local law enforcement in large cities have more important things to do than go around looking for illegal immigrants. I'd rather they spend time on violent crime and theft/burglaries than rounding up a guy/gal mowing the lawn or cleaning someone's house (I clean my own and do our own yardwork)
2. there is limited space in city jails. I'd rather those spaces go to violent criminals, thieves than the same guy mowing the lawn/cleaning house.

I'm not talking about having local police conduct raids. I'm talking about asking local jurisdictions to run checks against criminals they have already arrested, and if those people are in the US illegally, notifying ICE and helping arrange for transferring custody if appropriate.

Dems argue that's too much work. Yet it's perfectly find to require a private company owner to make sure he only employs legal citizens, and penalize him if he makes a mistake. If it's too work for one, why isn't it too much work for the other?

They have no room in their jails for non violent criminals breaking FEDERAL law. Have you never read/seen news reports about overcrowded county jails? Just google it, and you'll see how wide spread the problem is.

If they check status when processing those arrested, things should be fine. As soon as Congress gets itself together and removes pot from schedule 1 so we can be more rational in our approaches, that should also help.

But every excuse for why it's too challenging for the government to handle people breaking the law, goes easily for why it's too challenging for business owners to be responsible for e-verify. If you think it's bogus when people say it's not fair to put the work on business owners, then just fall back to all your reasons why the government can't enforce its own laws with its own people. Or, admit that everyone's being whiny because they benefit in some way by ignoring the law, and be ok with it for everyone, or decide that everyone needs to be held accountable.

Well, Sessions wants to go after recreational pot users.

The challenges for local law enforcement is a legal issue. You cannot have more than x number of people in prisons. The challenges against using e-verify are bureaucratic ones, not legal ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with E-Verify. Everyone should support it.

And bring back Secure Communities - even if the democrats are opposed to Secure Communities. It is the right thing to do.

I don't think most people are against e-verify, as evidenced by the polls, including Dems. However, a few years ago some Tea Party members and R Rick Perry were against it. It's usually the business people and politicians beholden to the business people who are against it, yes including some Dems. Something about too much regulation and burdening the businesses with more bureacracy and paperwork.

What is "Secure Communities"?

It's interesting that the arguments against e-verify and holding illegal criminals until ICE can pick them up are the same. Too much work/not the job of the person being tasked with the work.

PP here.. I agree with you, the only thing is that Dems aren't hypocritical about e-verify. Look up thread.. someone posted a list of senators who voted for the 2013 immigration bill, which included expanding e-verify. Lots of Dems were for it. Lots of Rs were against it.

Look at what the bill consisted of. It has a lot of really good immigration reform, specifically calls out chain migration and visas for low skilled workers. It does allow for path to citizenship, but it clearly states that these folks could not get any kind of federal aid while on the provisional status. And yes, it states the person cannot have any kind of criminal conviction to get amnesty. Lots of money for border security and law enforcement. Shame it didn't pass.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557

The Dems being for e-verify and against local law enforcement holding illegal aliens who commit crimes for ICE is hypocritical. How can you be ok with requiring additional work and responsibility for private business owners (e-verify) but against requiring additional work and responsibility for government offices (holding illegal aliens for ICE/notifying ICE of criminals being held) without being a hypocrite?

1. local law enforcement in large cities have more important things to do than go around looking for illegal immigrants. I'd rather they spend time on violent crime and theft/burglaries than rounding up a guy/gal mowing the lawn or cleaning someone's house (I clean my own and do our own yardwork)
2. there is limited space in city jails. I'd rather those spaces go to violent criminals, thieves than the same guy mowing the lawn/cleaning house.

I'm not talking about having local police conduct raids. I'm talking about asking local jurisdictions to run checks against criminals they have already arrested, and if those people are in the US illegally, notifying ICE and helping arrange for transferring custody if appropriate.

Dems argue that's too much work. Yet it's perfectly find to require a private company owner to make sure he only employs legal citizens, and penalize him if he makes a mistake. If it's too work for one, why isn't it too much work for the other?

They have no room in their jails for non violent criminals breaking FEDERAL law. Have you never read/seen news reports about overcrowded county jails? Just google it, and you'll see how wide spread the problem is.

If they check status when processing those arrested, things should be fine. As soon as Congress gets itself together and removes pot from schedule 1 so we can be more rational in our approaches, that should also help.

But every excuse for why it's too challenging for the government to handle people breaking the law, goes easily for why it's too challenging for business owners to be responsible for e-verify. If you think it's bogus when people say it's not fair to put the work on business owners, then just fall back to all your reasons why the government can't enforce its own laws with its own people. Or, admit that everyone's being whiny because they benefit in some way by ignoring the law, and be ok with it for everyone, or decide that everyone needs to be held accountable.

Well, Sessions wants to go after recreational pot users.

The challenges for local law enforcement is a legal issue. You cannot have more than x number of people in prisons. The challenges against using e-verify are bureaucratic ones, not legal ones.

Sessions wants to support and enforce federal laws as written. Instead of hoping Presidents suggest doing an end-run around written laws, perhaps legislative bodies should do their jobs and change the laws if that's what they want to have happen.

But it's nice that you're derailing. I'm glad you understand that wanting to require private employers to check all employees for their status while not also supporting jails check everyone arrested for their status is inconsistent. Not every state has prisons operating over capacity, and since the person's going to be in jail for a bit anyway, contacting ICE shouldn't be a problem even in those states that do have prisons operating over capacity.

[Anonymous]

As somebody who has had to deal with e-verify, I can affirm it’s a mess. We have had US citizens unable to clear their names from this convoluted system. The only good news is, it doesn’t really work. We had one US citizen who got an E-verify letter continue to work for FOUR more years until the case was resolved in his favor. He was not even an immigrant, just a regular joe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is full of "whatabout" isms.

If you are legally allowed to work, E-Verify shouldn't be a hurdle at all.

If you are not legally allowed to work, then don't work. If you "need" to work, then return to your country and look for work there.

It isn't that complicated.

It is that simple. Unless you want to increase votes by importing illegal aliens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory E-Verify is easily the single most popular immigration reform with Americans. For example, a recent poll by Pulse Opinion Research found that nearly 60 percent of likely voters want mandatory E-Verify to be part of a deal on DACA, if a deal is made and finalized.

Months ago, when likely American voters were asked by Pulse Opinion Research if they supported mandatory E-Verify, a majority of 68 percent said yes. Another 71 percent of voters said businesses should be required to hire from pools of Americans with the highest unemployment rates before importing cheaper, foreign workers through various visa programs or hiring illegal aliens.

Call today. Require e-Verify. Proven technology. Save your
Neighbors jobs

Phone Sen. Tim Kaine at [phone]
Phone Sen. Mark Warner at [phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sessions wants to support and enforce federal laws as written. Instead of hoping Presidents suggest doing an end-run around written laws, perhaps legislative bodies should do their jobs and change the laws if that's what they want to have happen.

But it's nice that you're derailing. I'm glad you understand that wanting to require private employers to check all employees for their status while not also supporting jails check everyone arrested for their status is inconsistent. Not every state has prisons operating over capacity, and since the person's going to be in jail for a bit anyway, contacting ICE shouldn't be a problem even in those states that do have prisons operating over capacity.

I prefer my presidents obey laws and norms around conflicts of interest and self-dealing and emoluments and money laundering.

Until we get that cleaned up, enforcing these lessor laws is minor league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with E-Verify. Everyone should support it.

And bring back Secure Communities - even if the democrats are opposed to Secure Communities. It is the right thing to do.

I don't think most people are against e-verify, as evidenced by the polls, including Dems. However, a few years ago some Tea Party members and R Rick Perry were against it. It's usually the business people and politicians beholden to the business people who are against it, yes including some Dems. Something about too much regulation and burdening the businesses with more bureacracy and paperwork.

What is "Secure Communities"?

It's interesting that the arguments against e-verify and holding illegal criminals until ICE can pick them up are the same. Too much work/not the job of the person being tasked with the work.

PP here.. I agree with you, the only thing is that Dems aren't hypocritical about e-verify. Look up thread.. someone posted a list of senators who voted for the 2013 immigration bill, which included expanding e-verify. Lots of Dems were for it. Lots of Rs were against it.

Look at what the bill consisted of. It has a lot of really good immigration reform, specifically calls out chain migration and visas for low skilled workers. It does allow for path to citizenship, but it clearly states that these folks could not get any kind of federal aid while on the provisional status. And yes, it states the person cannot have any kind of criminal conviction to get amnesty. Lots of money for border security and law enforcement. Shame it didn't pass.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-summary-093557

The Dems being for e-verify and against local law enforcement holding illegal aliens who commit crimes for ICE is hypocritical. How can you be ok with requiring additional work and responsibility for private business owners (e-verify) but against requiring additional work and responsibility for government offices (holding illegal aliens for ICE/notifying ICE of criminals being held) without being a hypocrite?

1. local law enforcement in large cities have more important things to do than go around looking for illegal immigrants. I'd rather they spend time on violent crime and theft/burglaries than rounding up a guy/gal mowing the lawn or cleaning someone's house (I clean my own and do our own yardwork)
2. there is limited space in city jails. I'd rather those spaces go to violent criminals, thieves than the same guy mowing the lawn/cleaning house.

I'm not talking about having local police conduct raids. I'm talking about asking local jurisdictions to run checks against criminals they have already arrested, and if those people are in the US illegally, notifying ICE and helping arrange for transferring custody if appropriate.

Dems argue that's too much work. Yet it's perfectly find to require a private company owner to make sure he only employs legal citizens, and penalize him if he makes a mistake. If it's too work for one, why isn't it too much work for the other?

They have no room in their jails for non violent criminals breaking FEDERAL law. Have you never read/seen news reports about overcrowded county jails? Just google it, and you'll see how wide spread the problem is.

If they check status when processing those arrested, things should be fine. As soon as Congress gets itself together and removes pot from schedule 1 so we can be more rational in our approaches, that should also help.

But every excuse for why it's too challenging for the government to handle people breaking the law, goes easily for why it's too challenging for business owners to be responsible for e-verify. If you think it's bogus when people say it's not fair to put the work on business owners, then just fall back to all your reasons why the government can't enforce its own laws with its own people. Or, admit that everyone's being whiny because they benefit in some way by ignoring the law, and be ok with it for everyone, or decide that everyone needs to be held accountable.

Well, Sessions wants to go after recreational pot users.

The challenges for local law enforcement is a legal issue. You cannot have more than x number of people in prisons. The challenges against using e-verify are bureaucratic ones, not legal ones.

Sessions wants to support and enforce federal laws as written. Instead of hoping Presidents suggest doing an end-run around written laws, perhaps legislative bodies should do their jobs and change the laws if that's what they want to have happen.

But it's nice that you're derailing. I'm glad you understand that wanting to require private employers to check all employees for their status while not also supporting jails check everyone arrested for their status is inconsistent. Not every state has prisons operating over capacity, and since the person's going to be in jail for a bit anyway, contacting ICE shouldn't be a problem even in those states that do have prisons operating over capacity.

Well, according to ^PP pot shouldn't be considered a jailable offense so that we have more room in prisons for illegal immigrants.

Most people arrested for non violent offenses are let go on bond if they can afford it. They are not automatically put in jails awaiting their court date, and certainly not those who are arrested for having a small amount of pot. What you are saying is that if someone is arresting for having a small amount of pot and is an illegal immigrant, they should be put in prison and held for ICE instead of putting a violent criminal or a thief in jail while they await their court date?

An employer/employee can wait till they verify employment status. Criminals don't wait for more room in prisons before they go on a crime spree.

[Anonymous]

Amazing news. Supply and demand economics really works

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/business/economy/labor-market-inmates.html

But this means to help low skilled workers we should limit immigration and reduce the supply of workers and let the free market Work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who has had to deal with e-verify, I can affirm it’s a mess. We have had US citizens unable to clear their names from this convoluted system. The only good news is, it doesn’t really work. We had one US citizen who got an E-verify letter continue to work for FOUR more years until the case was resolved in his favor. He was not even an immigrant, just a regular joe.

E-verify does not work. All you need is a valid social security number, which illegal aliens can easily acquire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those farmers who voted for Trump are going to be so delighted.

they're already panicking with all the deportations.

Very true. I know a road construction business owner in Texas who is already having serious problems finding Labor. And he’s a GOPer.

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. That is not to say that they don't exist. They are created when employers or government agencies tamper with the natural functioning of the wage mechanism.

"[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a "labor shortage'', remember what you are hearing: a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market."

-1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

How’s Teitelbaum at operating a road grader? Because no amount of subsidies is bringing labor to South Texas to pave roads in the summer. The alternative is the road doesn’t get built or repaired.

i can remember liberals making the same argument about oil. if prices go up ahh, we can;t deal. people can;t cut back. absurd.

and why are you so quick to deny low skilled labor greater wages ? are you that special? what if they paid people $50 an hour and health care to grade a road. bet a lot of people would do the work.
P
your assumption that workers must accept low wages is ignorant.

So why is Trump importing low-wage foreign workers for his properties instaed of paying Americans decently for the same jobs?

They have a worth ethic and make good employees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:democrats owned this issue 20 years ago. we were the party of the workers. Now we are the party of the undocumented workers. it wasn't clinton that lost , it was the policy. the sooner we remember this the sooner we can give the boot to pelosi and schumer and start electing a new generation of Democrats that are focused on US citizens.

As a trump supporter, you have posted a comment of remarkable common sense. I hope that no one in your party listens because you have exactly summed up a major democrat problem and solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:democrats owned this issue 20 years ago. we were the party of the workers. Now we are the party of the undocumented workers. it wasn't clinton that lost , it was the policy. the sooner we remember this the sooner we can give the boot to pelosi and schumer and start electing a new generation of Democrats that are focused on US citizens.

Not that long ago, many conservatives and tea partiers were against e-verify.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/182151-conservatives-pan-gops-e-verify-bill

A growing chorus of conservatives is hammering a Republican proposal requiring businesses to verify the legal status of the workers they hire.

The conservative critics – including Republican lawmakers, Tea Party groups and border-state governors – are airing a long string of complaints: From fears the bill will erode civil liberties; to worries it will harm the agriculture industry; to concerns that it simply won't work.
.....
Tea Party groups are also panning the proposal. On Thursday, a number of those organizations – including the the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Liberty Coalition and Take Back Washington – wrote to every member of Congress warning that the bill "poses a threat to both the Constitution and every law-abiding citizen of this country."

The groups said the bill jeopardizes small businesses with expensive new paperwork burdens, violates individuals' rights to work and establishes "a de facto national I.D. system – even for citizens."

"The dangerous and intrusive precedent set by the bill opens the floodgate of additional incursive and contentious employment verification hurdles. Mission creep is the signature of all bureaucracies," the groups wrote.

"After enactment of the Legal Workforce Act, employers could soon be required to verify whether employees are delinquent in the payment of federal, state, or local taxes, in compliance with child support or alimony decrees, on a terrorist watch list, or convicted or even accused of crime."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has also attacked E-verify, saying last year that it “would not make a hill of beans’ difference in what’s happening today."

so you let conservatives tell you what to think? what a progressive

Smartest type of progressive, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:democrats owned this issue 20 years ago. we were the party of the workers. Now we are the party of the undocumented workers. it wasn't clinton that lost , it was the policy. the sooner we remember this the sooner we can give the boot to pelosi and schumer and start electing a new generation of Democrats that are focused on US citizens.

As a trump supporter, you have posted a comment of remarkable common sense. I hope that no one in your party listens because you have exactly summed up a major democrat problem and solution.

As workers' rights grew, they were no longer victims, and therefore no longer useful to the Dems. But give me an illegal, and that's just the kind of person the Dems can use. Boss Tweed is alive, well and hosting a show on MSNBC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:democrats owned this issue 20 years ago. we were the party of the workers. Now we are the party of the undocumented workers. it wasn't clinton that lost , it was the policy. the sooner we remember this the sooner we can give the boot to pelosi and schumer and start electing a new generation of Democrats that are focused on US citizens.

As a trump supporter, you have posted a comment of remarkable common sense. I hope that no one in your party listens because you have exactly summed up a major democrat problem and solution.

As workers' rights grew, they were no longer victims, and therefore no longer useful to the Dems. But give me an illegal, and that's just the kind of person the Dems can use. Boss Tweed is alive, well and hosting a show on MSNBC.

From what I have read, R business owners love their cheap illegal immigrant labor. Farmers are telling their illegal immigrant workers not to worry because Trump isn't going after them. And indeed, Trump has stated the same:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-farmers-trump/trump-reassures-farmers-immigration-crackdown-not-aimed-at-their-workers-idUSKCN18B1BB

At a roundtable on farm labor at the White House last month, Trump said he did not want to create labor problems for farmers and would look into improving a program that brings in temporary agricultural workers on legal visas.

About half of U.S. crop workers are in the country illegally and more than two-thirds are foreign born..

During the roundtable, Luke Brubaker, a dairy farmer from Pennsylvania, described how immigration agents had recently picked up half a dozen chicken catchers working for a poultry transportation company in his county.

The employer tried to replace them with local hires, but within three hours all but one had quit, Brubaker told the gathering at the White House.

Trump said he wanted to help and asked Secretary Perdue to look into the issues and come back with recommendations, according to the accounts.

And also Trump's own businesses use cheap foreign workers. Given that more illegal immigrants overstay their visas, rather than cross the border illegally, and many of the larger businesses that hire these folks are Rs, seems to me that it's the R business owners that's creating the issue, not the D politicians.