Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to polls, that "support" among the GOP has fallen off by leaps and bounds over the past year and the white working class has watched the GOP strip away the safety net it depends on.

What part of the safety net has been "stripped" away?

The social contract that your neighbors would hire you and your family before some
Child frOm India.

In 80s we would hire US kids and trains them

Now MNC hire Indian body shops and fire anyone that is US.

No H1Bs. No H4s. No F1s. No OPTs.
No L1s.


Hire your neighbors.

Or be like suckerberg and claim you can’t find educated workers from 3,000,000 grads a year

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to polls, that "support" among the GOP has fallen off by leaps and bounds over the past year and the white working class has watched the GOP strip away the safety net it depends on.

What part of the safety net has been "stripped" away?

Anonymous wrote:According to polls, that "support" among the GOP has fallen off by leaps and bounds over the past year and the white working class has watched the GOP strip away the safety net it depends on.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

+ 2'Democrats basically have two constituencies: the upper-middle class elites and the "other" - minorities, illegal immigrants, and the poor on government support. Republicans have the (primarily white) working, lower-middle, and middle classes - the workers who are having increasing trouble making ends meet and watching (and resenting.) as resources flow to illegals and welfare beneficiaries.

+1

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.

+1

+ 2'Democrats basically have two constituencies: the upper-middle class elites and the "other" - minorities, illegal immigrants, and the poor on government support. Republicans have the (primarily white) working, lower-middle, and middle classes - the workers who are having increasing trouble making ends meet and watching (and resenting.) as resources flow to illegals and welfare beneficiaries.

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.

+1

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.

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.

The excuse about e-verify and the bureaucracy came from Rs, not Dems.

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

Tea Party groups are also panning the proposal [e-verify]. 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.

I was responding to the blatantly innaccurate claim that "Dems aren't hypocritical about e-verify"

It's hypocritical for the Dems to be for e-verify but against local police cooperating with ICE.

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.

The excuse about e-verify and the bureaucracy came from Rs, not Dems.

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

Tea Party groups are also panning the proposal [e-verify]. 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.

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.

Tea Party groups are also panning the proposal [e-verify]. 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.